Anirudh is tried by a Court of Sessions and is convicted. The Sessions Court passes a sentence of…

The sentence falls within the petty-case exception to the accused's appeal right in section 417(b) of the BNSS (formerly section 376(b) CrPC): no appeal lies where a Court of Session passes only a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding three months, of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both. The exception expressly covers a qualifying short imprisonment and small fine imposed together.

Why not "Anirudh can file an appeal in the High Court."? The ordinary appeal route from a Sessions conviction is subject to the Sanhita's express exceptions. This sentence falls within the petty-case restriction, so the usual High Court route does not create an appeal here. Both components remain below the specified thresholds even though they are imposed together.

Why not "Anirudh can file an appeal with the Metropolitan Magistrate."? A Metropolitan Magistrate is not the appellate forum for a Sessions Court conviction, and the BNSS no longer provides for Metropolitan Magistrates at all. The judicial hierarchy does not permit that downward appeal, and the particular sentence also falls within the statutory no-appeal category. Neither the forum nor the asserted availability of appeal fits the stated case.

Why not "None of the following propositions: Anirudh can file an appeal in the High Court.; Anirudh can file an appeal with the Metropolitan Magistrate.; In this instance, there is no appeal available against the judgment of the Sessions Judge."? A correct proposition is present: the accused has no appeal under the applicable petty-case rule on these facts. Rejecting all the alternatives would disregard that express exception. The availability of other forms of judicial supervision, where appropriate, does not itself establish an ordinary statutory appeal.