The appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside a lawful conviction and a probation order without statutory justification, leading to manifest prejudice against the accused.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 397 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the accused Sumitra D/o Roopal Jat calling in question the judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (CIS) No.13/2024 by the Additional Sessions Court, Begu, District Chittorgarh. By the said judgment, the appeal preferred by the complainant was allowed, the conviction and sentence dated 21.03.2024 recorded by the learned ACJM, Rawatbhata in Criminal Case No.328/2021 were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh trial with a direction to record prosecution evidence.

2. The background facts, necessary for adjudication of the revision are that the respondent No.1 lodged FIR No.17/2021 on 17.01.2021 alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of a local altercation. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the case came to be registered as Criminal Case No.328/2021 before the Court of the learned ACJM, Rawatbhata. The matter was thereafter fixed for prosecution evidence. The record shows that on several dates, including 11.09.2023, 09.10.2023, 11.12.2023, 19.01.2024 and 29.02.2024, the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness despite opportunities having been granted. Ultimately, on 21.03.2024, the accused submitted a voluntary statement admitting guilt. The learned trial court, after satisfying itself regarding the voluntariness of the plea and taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, namely the nature of allegations, absence of criminal antecedents, delay occasioned due to prosecution default and the possibility of reformation, recorded conviction and extended the benefit of Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. A nominal amount of Rs.400/- towards prosecution expenses was imposed under Section 5 of the said Act.

3. Being dissatisfied with the sentence alone, the complainant preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal (CIS) No.13/2024. By the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2025, the learned appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 21.03.2024 and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh trial with a direction to record prosecution evidence.

4. The challenge raised before this Court is founded on the grounds that the appeal entertained by the Sessions Court was not maintainable in law; that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with a lawful conviction and a discretionary order of probation; that the order of remand amounts to an unjustified reopening of a concluded trial, causing prejudice to the accused; and that such interference was undertaken without recording any finding of perversity, illegality or non-application of mind.

5. In the backdrop of the above facts, the issues that arise for consideration are whether the complainant could have validly invoked the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. in the present case, and whether the appellate court was justified in withdrawing the benefit of probation and directing a fresh trial.

6. At the threshold, the question of maintainability deserves consideration. The right of appeal in criminal matters is entirely statutory and must be traced to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. confers a limited right upon a victim to prefer an appeal only against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or im