JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The petitioner-accused has preferred this Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District-Jalore in State of Rajasthan v. Ashwani Kumar, [Criminal Appeal No. 10/14 (124/2012)] , whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the Appeal of State and quashed and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.9.2012 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Sanchore in regular Criminal Case No. 22/11, State of Rajasthan v. Ashwani Kumar under Section 304-A I.P.C. whereby the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nayayalaya, Sanchore acquitted the petitioner-accused for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. but the learned Appellate Court allowing the Appeal, convicted for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced him for simple imprisonment for one year and six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 3. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment of acquittal in the matter in hand Appeal lies before the High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not having jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is without jurisdiction, therefore, on this legal point, this Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor also does not dispute on this legal position. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. From the perusal of available record, it reveals that the petitioner-accused was acquitted by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Sanchore (Jalore) for offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., which is cognizable and bailable. 7. According to sub-section (1)(a) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. District Magistrate can direct Public Prosecutor to present an Appeal to the Court of Sessions from order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Therefore, the Appeal against the offence, which is cognizable and non-bailable lies before the Sessions Judge but the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is cognizable but it is bailable and not non-bailable. Therefore, the Appeal against the offence, which is cognizable and non-bailable lies before the Sessions Judge but the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is cognizable but it is bailable and not non-bailable. Thus, by virtue of provision of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. Appeal in case of acquittal from the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. which is cognizable and bailable can lay before the High Court as per provisions of Section 378 Clause (1)(b) read with Clause (3) of Cr.P.C. 8. The learned Appellate Court without considering these provisions and without having jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nayayalaya, Sanchore allowed the Appeal, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Revision Petition deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal (Jalore) is quashed and set aside. However, respondent State is at liberty to file leave to Appeal against the judgment of learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Sanchore if so advised.Revision allowed. *******