Section 378 CrPC vs Section 419 BNSS — Appeal Against Acquittal (CrPC 372, 378)

In India, Sections 413 and 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 372 and 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. The victim's right of appeal against acquittal, the State's routes, the High Court's leave and the complainant's sixty-day special-leave limit all carry over; the Delhi Special Police Establishment reference is dropped.

At a glance

These are procedural provisions; the First Schedule classification does not apply to them.

What changed

• Minor edit — Section 413 main clause. The India Code text of Section 372 CrPC reads "except as provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force"; Section 413 reads "except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force". Only "Code" → "Sanhita" and the word "or" differ.
• Identical — the victim's proviso. The proviso inserted in Section 372 by Act 5 of 2009 (s.29, w.e.f. 31 December 2009) is repeated word for word in Section 413: "the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation".
• Minor edit — Section 419(1). The District Magistrate and State Government routes are repeated. The square brackets around "not being an order under clause (a)" in Section 378(1)(b) are dropped.
• Modified — Section 419(2). Section 378(2) named "the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946)" before "any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act". Section 419(2) keeps only the general words ("any agency … other than this Sanhita") and reads "in a case" for "in any case". On a reading, the Establishment is covered only if it is such an agency.
• Identical — Section 419(3) to (6). The High Court's leave, the complainant's special leave, the six-month and sixty-day limits, and the bar after refusal are unchanged.
• Modified — the definition of victim. Section 2(wa) CrPC referred to loss or injury caused by "the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged". Section 2(1)(y) BNSS refers to loss or injury caused by "the act or omission of the accused person" and "includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim". On a reading of the text, the definition is no longer tied to the charge; no judgment read has considered the effect.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Section 413 BNSS (extract): "No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal … and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

Section 419(2) BNSS (extract): "If such an order of acquittal is passed in a case in which the offence has been investigated by any agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Sanhita, the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal".

Section 419(5) BNSS (extract): "No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal."

How it works — who may appeal, and where

1. The starting rule. Under Section 413, an appeal lies only where the BNSS or another law provides one. An appeal against acquittal therefore has to be found in the proviso to Section 413 or in Section 419.

2. The victim. The proviso gives the victim a right of appeal on three grounds: acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. The forum is the court hearing appeals against the trial court's convictions: the Court of Session for a Magistrate (Section 415(3)), the High Court for a Sessions Judge (Section 415(2)). The proviso's words state no condition of leave; the limitation period for a victim's appeal is not analysed on this page.

3. The District Magistrate. Under Section 419(1)(a) the District Magistrate "may, in any case" direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Court of Session from a Magistrate's acquittal "in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence". No High Court leave is involved, because the appeal is to the Court of Session.

4. The State Government. Under Section 419(1)(b) the State Government may direct an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate acquittal by any court other than a High Court (not being an order under clause (a)), or from an acquittal by the Court of Session in revision.

5. The Central Government. Under Section 419(2), where a Central agency investigated, the Central Government "may … also" direct an appeal on the same two routes. The word "also" leaves the State route open.

6. High Court leave. Section 419(3): "No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court."

7. The complainant. In a case instituted upon complaint, Section 419(4) lets the complainant appeal to the High Court if the High Court grants special leave on the complainant's application. Section 419(5) sets the outer limits for that application: six months for a public-servant complainant, sixty days otherwise, from the date of acquittal. Under Section 419(6), if special leave is refused, no appeal from that acquittal lies under sub-section (1) or (2).

8. After a reversal. If the High Court reverses an acquittal and sentences the accused to death, life or ten years or more, Section 420 gives him an appeal to the Supreme Court.

What this means in practice

• For the victim or the legal heir: the proviso to Section 413 is a separate route from the complainant's special leave under Section 419(4). The Supreme Court's reading of the identical CrPC words (below) is that a victim need not seek special leave under Section 378(4), now Section 419(4). File in the court named by the proviso — the Court of Session for a Magistrate's acquittal, the High Court for a Sessions acquittal.
• For a complainant who is not a victim: only Section 419(4) is available. Under Section 419(5), the High Court shall not entertain a special leave application made after sixty days (six months for a public-servant complainant); under Section 419(6), if special leave is refused, no appeal from that acquittal lies under sub-section (1) or (2).
• For the prosecution: in a case investigated by a Central agency, both the State Government and the Central Government may direct an appeal (Section 419(1)-(2)); a High Court appeal still needs leave (Section 419(3)).
• For the acquitted accused: Section 442(3) BNSS still provides that nothing in the revision power authorises a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, and Section 442(4) bars a revision by a party who could have appealed and did not.

Judgments that still matter

Sections 413 and 419 BNSS repeat Sections 372 and 378 CrPC apart from the edits listed above. On a reading of the text, judgments construing those words remain relevant. None of the judgments below construes the BNSS provisions.

Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Supreme Court, 15 February 2007. A two-judge bench set out "general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal" (para 42): the appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence; the Code "puts no limitation, restriction or condition" on that power; but there is a "double presumption in favour of the accused", and "If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal". Applying these, the Court set aside the High Court's conviction and restored the trial court's acquittal (paras 44-45). Why it matters now: Section 419 creates the route of appeal; the standard applied on it comes from judgments like this one.

Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Rep. Through LRs v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1 (2018 INSC 969), decided 12 October 2018. Three judges heard the case. Madan B. Lokur J., for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer J., held that "the significant date is the date of the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court", so a victim may appeal an acquittal passed after 31 December 2009 even if the offence was earlier (para 74); that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) is entitled to appeal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction (para 77); and that the special-leave requirement in Section 378(4) is "confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint" (para 78). The High Court's orders were set aside and the victim's appeal remitted (para 79). Deepak Gupta J., partly dissenting, would have required the victim to seek leave under Section 378(3) when appealing to the High Court (paras 2, 5, 18). Why it matters now: the proviso to Section 413 and Section 419(3)-(4) repeat the words both opinions construed.

Joseph Stephen & Ors. v. Santhanasamy & Ors., [2022] 8 S.C.R. 182 (2022 INSC 96), decided 25 January 2022. The High Court had reversed an acquittal in revision at the victims' instance. The Supreme Court held that where the victim or complainant has not availed the appeal under Section 372 or Section 378(4), a revision against the acquittal "shall not be entertained" and the party "shall be relegated to prefer the appeal" (para 10.2), and described the victim's right as "an absolute right" (para 10.2). It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the High Court to treat the revisions as appeals under Section 372 (para 13). Why it matters now: Section 442(3)-(5) BNSS repeats the revision rules the Court applied.

M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2612 (2025 INSC 804), decided 8 April 2025. In cheque-dishonour complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a two-judge bench held that "the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not", and that such a victim "need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378" (para 10). The person entitled to the proceeds of the dishonoured cheque was held to be a victim (para 9). The High Court's order was set aside and liberty given to file appeals under the proviso within four months (para 11). Why it matters now: the case is dated after 1 July 2024 but construes the CrPC; the BNSS repeats both provisions.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any "appeal" pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is disposed of under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, an appeal against acquittal already filed by then continues under Sections 372 and 378 CrPC. The provisions read do not expressly say which Code governs an appeal filed on or after 1 July 2024 against an acquittal passed earlier; the wording of the two Codes is the same on the points covered here. See offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Sections 372 and 378 CrPC? Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 419 BNSS replaced Section 378 CrPC, from 1 July 2024. Section 413 keeps the rule that no appeal lies except as provided by the Sanhita or any other law, and keeps the victim's proviso. Section 419 keeps the State, Central Government and complainant routes of appeal against acquittal.

Can a victim appeal against an acquittal under the BNSS? Yes. The proviso to Section 413 BNSS gives the victim a right to prefer an appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The appeal lies to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against that court's order of conviction. Section 2(1)(y) BNSS defines victim to include the guardian or legal heir.

Does a victim need special leave from the High Court to appeal an acquittal? In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) the Supreme Court held that a victim appealing under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC need not seek special leave under Section 378(4), even if the victim is also the complainant. In Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018 INSC 969) the majority held special leave was not required; Deepak Gupta J. would have required leave under Section 378(3). Section 413 and Section 419 BNSS repeat those words.

Who decides whether the State appeals against an acquittal? Under Section 419(1) BNSS, the District Magistrate may direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Court of Session against a Magistrate's acquittal in a cognizable and non-bailable offence, and the State Government may direct an appeal to the High Court in other cases. Under Section 419(2), where a Central agency investigated, the Central Government may also direct an appeal. A High Court appeal under either route needs the High Court's leave (Section 419(3)).

What is the time limit for a complainant's special leave application? Section 419(5) BNSS bars the High Court from entertaining a complainant's application for special leave to appeal after six months where the complainant is a public servant, and after sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of the order of acquittal. The same limits were in Section 378(5) CrPC. If special leave is refused, Section 419(6) bars any State or Central Government appeal from that acquittal.

Can a victim file a revision instead of an appeal against acquittal? In Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022 INSC 96) the Supreme Court held that where the victim or complainant has not availed the appeal under Section 372 or Section 378(4) CrPC, a revision against the acquittal shall not be entertained and the party is to be relegated to the appeal. Section 442(3) to (5) BNSS repeats the revision rules the Court applied, including the bar on converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision.

How does an appellate court treat an order of acquittal? In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (Supreme Court, 15 February 2007, para 42) the Court held that the appellate court has full power to reappreciate the evidence, but must bear in mind a double presumption of innocence in favour of an acquitted accused, and should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible. Section 419 BNSS does not alter the appellate power.

Which law applies to an appeal against an acquittal passed before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an appeal pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is disposed of under the CrPC as if the Sanhita had not come into force. On a reading of that text, an appeal already filed by that date continues under Sections 372 and 378 CrPC; the text read does not expressly address an appeal filed on or after that date against an earlier acquittal.

Related

• The accused was acquitted: who can appeal, and when? (BNSS 413 and 419)
• Section 397 CrPC vs Section 438 BNSS — Criminal Revision (CrPC 397-401)
• Section 389 CrPC vs BNSS — Suspension of sentence pending appeal
• Victim rights and compensation: old law vs new law
• Offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Section 2 CrPC vs Section 2 BNSS — Definitions
• Sections 24–25A CrPC vs Sections 18–20 BNSS — Public Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors and the Directorate of Prosecution

Sources

• Acts and sections read: BNSS 2023 ss.2(1)(y), 413, 415, 417-420, 442, 531 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); CrPC 1973 ss.2(wa), 372, 374-378, 401(3) with footnotes (original India Code text).
• Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007_2_630_650_EN.md); Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018_13_1_46_EN.md); Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022_8_182_197_EN.md); Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025_4_2612_2649_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.