IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.747 of 2007 Sheo Shankar Paswan Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 10/ 15.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal appears not maintainable before this Court on account of the provision under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. which takes out the jurisdiction of this Court on account of the sentence which was inflicted upon the appellant. The trial has been held by 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Buxar, which court is covered by “any other court”, which appears in section 374(2) Cr.P.C. It further appears that if the sentence is of more than seven years, which was passed by the trial court, which could be a court other than the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, then only the appeal could be maintainable before this Court. Sentence passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge upto seven years would lay the appeal before the Sessions Judge. The appellant was convicted under section 366A IPC and was directed to suffer RI for seven years and he was further convicted under section 342 IPC and was directed to suffer RI for one year. It has very categorically been directed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Buxar that the sentences were to run concurrently, so the total period could be seven years and that is not covered by the term “more than seven years”. The appeal, as such, was not maintainable before this 2 Court. (Please see 1977 CrLJ 28 (FB) (Ram Beyas Vs State of Bihar) Let the memo of appeal be returned to the appellant for being presented before the Sessions Judge, Buxar, which forum may be the right forum. The Sessions Judge shall condone the delay in filing the appeal as the same was admitted by this Court. The appellant is in custody. If the appellant prays for bail, the Sessions Judge may admit him to bail. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)