APPEALS
Reviewing judicial decisions is a fundamental element of natural justice and fair procedure, designed to correct errors and reinforce public confidence in criminal administration.
While reviews can be conducted by the original deciding court, higher courts offer a more expedient review mechanism, which under the BNSS primarily takes the form of either an “appeal” or a “revision”.
As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, an appeal is a formal grievance brought before a superior court to correct or reverse an error or injustice committed by a lower court.
However, because appeals introduce extra litigation time and costs, the right to appeal is not unlimited; under Section 413 of the BNSS, no appeal lies against any criminal court judgment or order unless specifically authorized by the BNSS or another governing law.
PART I
Types of appeals
Appeal from convictions
1. NO APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES
In accordance with the foundational legal doctrine that no right of appeal exists unless specifically provided by law, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) outlines precise conditions under which a party can challenge a criminal conviction.
However, these statutory appellate rights are strictly delimited, as the BNSS explicitly bars appeals in designated circumstances to preserve judicial efficiency and prevent excessive litigation.
Consequently, examining these categorical exclusions first provides necessary clarity on the boundaries of appellate jurisdiction under the BNSS framework.
(1) No appeal in petty cases.
According to Section 417 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a convicted person is restricted from filing an appeal in petty cases where the penalty falls below specified statutory thresholds.
Specifically, appeals are barred when the only penalty imposed is imprisonment up to three months or a fine up to ₹1,000 (or both) by a High Court; imprisonment up to three months or a fine up to ₹200 (or both) by a Sessions Court; a fine up to ₹100 by a First Class Magistrate; or a fine up to ₹200 imposed during a summary trial by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or specially empowered First Class Magistrate.
While an appeal becomes permissible if another substantive punishment is combined with these minor sentences, a case does not gain appealable status merely because the convict is ordered to give security to keep the peace, directed to face default imprisonment for unpaid fines, or subject to multiple fines that collectively remain within the designated statutory limit.
(2) No appeal from conviction on plea of guilty.
Under Section 416 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an accused person convicted on the basis of their own voluntary plea of guilty is barred from appealing the conviction, provided the plea was genuine, clear, and not obtained through trickery.
However, because admitting guilt does not imply agreeing to an unlawful or excessive penalty, a person convicted by a Sessions Court or a Judicial Magistrate retains a limited right to appeal regarding the extent or legality of the sentence.
Conversely, if the conviction and sentence are handed down by a High Court, no appeal whatsoever is permitted, as High Court judgments are presumed to be legally sound and free from serious infirmity.
2. APPEALS TO SUPERIOR COURTS
Subject to statutory limitations such as petty cases or guilty pleas, any person convicted of an offense has the general right to appeal their conviction to a higher court in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, under Section 421 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if two or more individuals are convicted together in a joint trial and at least one of them meets the legal criteria to file an appeal, that right of appeal automatically extends to all or any of the co-accused convicted in that same trial.
(1) Appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal cases is derived from a synthesis of statutory frameworks and constitutional mandates. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court when a High Court convicts a person using its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Section 415(1), or when it reverses an acquittal on appeal to award death, life imprisonment, or a term of ten years or more under Section 420.
Constitutionally, Article 132(1) read with Article 134-A permits appeals involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, while Article 134(1) guarantees an appeal if the High Court issues a sentence of death upon reversing an acquittal, withdrawing a case for trial, or certifying the matter as fit for Supreme Court review.
Furthermore, under Article 136, the Supreme Court retains discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against any ruling from any tribunal or court.
Complementing these provisions, the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 statutory expands this jurisdiction by guaranteeing an absolute right of appeal when the High Court sentences an accused to life imprisonment or ten or more years of incarceration upon reversing an acquittal or conducting a trial withdrawn from a subordinate court.
(2) Appeal to the High Court.
Under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), appellate jurisdiction for challenging criminal convictions is divided between the High Court and the Sessions Court based on the presiding judge and sentence severity.
Pursuant to Section 415(2) BNSS, a person convicted by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, or receiving a sentence of imprisonment exceeding seven years from any court (or where a co-accused in the same trial receives such a term), may appeal directly to the High Court.
Acting as a court of first appeal, the High Court is required to independently review the entire body of evidence to verify the sustainability of the trial court’s conviction.
Conversely, under Section 415(3) BNSS, convictions passed by First or Second Class Magistrates, as well as orders under Sections 364 or 401 BNSS, are appealable to the Sessions Court.
Furthermore, Section 415(4) BNSS establishes a strict timeline, mandating that any appeal concerning sentences for sexual offenses specified under Sections 64–68, 70, or 71 of the BNS 2023 must be resolved within six months from the date the appeal is filed.
Appeal against inadequacy of sentence
Under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), both the State and Central Governments are empowered to direct Public Prosecutors to appeal sentences deemed inadequate, directing such appeals to the Sessions Court for Magistrate orders or to the High Court for other trial courts.
Whenever an enhancement of sentence is sought under Section 442 read with Sections 438 and 427 BNSS, the High Court must afford the accused a fair opportunity to show cause, during which the accused holds the statutory right to contest the penalty by pleading for complete acquittal or sentence reduction.
For sexual offenses under Sections 64–68, 70, or 71 of the BNS 2023, these appeals must be disposed of within a strict six-month window.
Additionally, the proviso to Section 413 BNSS strengthens victims’ rights by granting them an independent statutory right to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offenses, or inadequate compensation without requiring government authorization.
As clarified by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, while a victim who is also a complainant must seek court leave under Section 419 BNSS to appeal an acquittal, non-complainant victims appealing acquittals, as well as any victims appealing inadequate compensation or lesser offense convictions, are exempt from obtaining leave.
Ultimately, constitutional mechanisms under Articles 132, 134, and 136 also provide a theoretical path to challenge inadequate High Court sentences directly before the Supreme Court.
Appeal against order of acquittal
Under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appeal against an order of acquittal is treated as an extraordinary legal remedy due to the double presumption of innocence that protects an acquitted individual.
Statutorily, the District Magistrate can order an appeal to the Sessions Court against a Magistrate’s acquittal in cognizable and non-bailable offenses, while the State Government can direct an appeal to the High Court against acquittal orders passed by subordinate courts.
Parallel powers exist for the Central Government in matters investigated by central agencies.
To prevent arbitrary state prosecution or personal vindictiveness, Section 419(3) BNSS mandates that appeals to the High Court require explicit judicial leave, which must be exercised judiciously based on special circumstances.
In complaint-based cases, private complainants can seek special leave from the High Court within strict timelines—60 days for private individuals and six months for public servants—and if such leave is refused, even the government is barred from preferring an appeal.
While statutory framework limits private parties from appealing acquittals directly in the High Court, private individuals can invoke Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, with all appeals adhering to limitation periods specified under Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
PART II
Procedure for dealing with an appeal and powers of appellate court
1. PETITION OF APPEAL AND ITS PRESENTATION
Under Part II governing the procedure for appeals and powers of the appellate court, Section 423 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates that every criminal appeal must be submitted as a written petition by the appellant or their advocate, accompanied by a copy of the challenged judgment unless exempted by the court.
When an appellant is incarcerated, Section 424 BNSS facilitates the filing process by permitting the inmate to hand over the petition and accompanying copies to the jail officer-in-charge, who is tasked with forwarding the papers to the proper appellate tribunal in what is colloquially known as a “jail appeal”.
While multiple individuals convicted under a single trial may file a joint appeal, a single appeal cannot be combined to challenge convictions arising from separate cases.
Finally, despite BNSS lacking explicit statutory wording requiring stated grounds in the petition itself, standard appellate practice dictates that the memorandum of appeal must contain a concise statement setting forth the legal and factual grounds relied upon to overturn the conviction.
2. HEARING OF APPEALS IN SESSIONS COURT
Under Section 422 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appeal filed in the Sessions Court is ordinarily heard directly by the Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, while an appeal challenging a conviction by a Second Class Magistrate may be assigned to and disposed of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
Furthermore, Section 422(2) BNSS specifies that neither an Additional Sessions Judge nor a CJM possesses automatic jurisdiction over all appeals; instead, they are empowered to hear only those cases that are explicitly transferred to them by the principal Sessions Judge or directed to them through a special order issued by the High Court.
3. SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPEALS
(1) Petition of appeal to be examined.
Under Section 425(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appellate court possesses the authority to summarily dismiss an appeal during preliminary evaluation if an examination of the written petition and the attached judgment reveals no sufficient legal or factual grounds to justify judicial interference.
Because a summary dismissal holds the exact same binding finality and legal effect for the accused as an order passed after a full evidentiary hearing, the law requires appellate judges to exercise this power with extreme caution, judicial prudence, and meticulous care.
(2) Calling for the record.
Under Section 425(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appellate court possesses the authority to summarily dismiss an appeal during preliminary evaluation if an examination of the written petition and the attached judgment reveals no sufficient legal or factual grounds to justify judicial interference.
Because a summary dismissal holds the exact same binding finality and legal effect for the accused as an order passed after a full evidentiary hearing, the law requires appellate judges to exercise this power with extreme caution, judicial prudence, and meticulous care.
(3) Reasonable opportunity of being heard.
According to proviso (a) to Section 425(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an appellate court is prohibited from summarily dismissing a regular criminal appeal—excluding a jail appeal—without first granting the appellant or their advocate a fair and reasonable opportunity to present oral arguments in support of the appeal.
This procedural requirement enforces the principle of natural justice, ensuring that an appeal is not discarded at the preliminary stage without providing the appellant or their legal representative a proper hearing.
(4) Special provisions regarding jail appeals.
Under proviso (b) and proviso (c) to Section 425(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specific statutory safeguards govern the summary dismissal of jail appeals filed by incarcerated individuals.
A jail appeal cannot be dismissed without offering the appellant a fair hearing, unless the appellate court determines that the petition is frivolous or that producing the prisoner in custody presents disproportionate logistical inconvenience under the circumstances.
Furthermore, the appellate court is explicitly barred from summarily dismissing a jail appeal before the full limitation period for filing an appeal has elapsed.
This statutory delay protects the accused person’s right to legal representation, ensuring that if they obtain legal counsel after submitting a jail appeal and subsequently file a regular appeal through an advocate within the prescribed time limit, their regular appeal is not invalidated or foreclosed by a premature dismissal of the original jail petition.
(5) Recording of reasons.
Under Section 425(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when an appellate court—specifically a Court of Session or a Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM)—dismisses an appeal summarily, it is statutorily required to record its reasons in writing.
This requirement provides essential transparency for higher judicial scrutiny, as orders from these lower appellate courts are subject to revisionary review by the High Court.
Furthermore, while this strict statutory provision does not technical apply to the High Court when it acts as an appellate court, it remains equally necessary for the High Court to record its reasons upon summarily dismissing an appeal.
Doing so ensures proper judicial transparency and allows for meaningful judicial review should the order be challenged before the Supreme Court under constitutional appeal provisions.
(6) Summary dismissal of jail appeal is no bar to the hearing of regular appeal.
Under Section 425(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the summary dismissal of a jail appeal does not operate as an absolute bar to the hearing of a subsequent or pending regular appeal filed by an advocate on behalf of the same appellant.
If the appellate court discovers that a regular appeal presented through legal counsel was not considered when the jail appeal was summarily dismissed, it has the discretion—when satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice—to hear and decide the regular appeal in accordance with the law.
This statutory provision creates an intentional exception to the general principle regarding the finality of judicial decisions codified in Section 434 BNSS, safeguarding an incarcerated appellant’s constitutional right to effective legal representation and ensuring that procedural technicalities do not compromise substantial justice.
(7) Non-appearance of the appellant.
In criminal jurisprudence, an appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution solely because the appellant or their advocate fails to appear.
As established through landmark rulings including Bani Singh, K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, and Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., the court must judicially evaluate the merits of the case by reviewing the trial records and judgment, even in the absence of counsel.
While courts are not legally bound to adjourn matters due to non-appearance—overruling earlier decisions like Ram Naresh Yadav—they may do so at their discretion as a matter of prudence.
Furthermore, when an incarcerated appellant is unrepresented, the court is advised to adjourn the matter and may appoint an advocate at State expense, ensuring that constitutional fairness is maintained while empowering higher courts to remedy any potential injustice arising from hearings conducted in absentia.
(8) No power to allow withdrawal of appeal.
Once a criminal appeal has been entertained by an appellate court, the court lacks the legal authority to permit its withdrawal by the appellant.
The appellate court is under a mandatory duty to adjudicate and decide the appeal on its merits, regardless of whether the appellant fails to pursue the case, chooses not to prosecute it, or is prevented from doing so for any reason.
In criminal procedure, an admitted appeal cannot be terminated through voluntary withdrawal or dismissal for default; it abates only upon the death of the accused appellant and under no other circumstances.
(9) Summary dismissal.
In Sita Ram v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court addressed the scope of summary dismissal under Section 384 CrPC (corresponding to Section 425 BNSS), ruling that allowing higher courts to summarily reject appeals without examining trial records or recording reasons was overly broad and arbitrary.
The Court established that summary dismissal must not be used as a routine administrative shortcut in preliminary hearings.
Instead, for appeals under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution or Section 420 BNSS, the mandatory rule requires issuing notice to the State, calling for the trial court records, and explicitly recording written grounds for any dismissal.
Summary rejection remains an exceptional measure permitted only after reviewing the appellant’s submitted materials and recording brief reasons; furthermore, where any reasonable doubt exists regarding the case, the benefit of doubt must favor the appellant by notifying the opposing party, even if the ultimate prospects of succeeding on appeal appear dim.