A Section 138 complainant may appeal an acquittal to the Sessions Court as a victim under Section 372 CrPC.

The original complainant appealed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the Trial Court’s order acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

At the hearing, the accused sought transfer of the appeal to the Sessions Court, relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, which treated a Section 138 complainant as a victim entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The State submitted that the issue was pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

Whether the complainant’s appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act should be transferred to the Sessions Court and treated as a victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS.

Whether the appeal’s merits should be considered by the High Court at this stage.

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives a victim a right to appeal against acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies from the relevant court; Section 413 BNSS is the corresponding provision referred to in the judgment.

In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported at 2025 (3) GLH 747, the Supreme Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is also the victim of the alleged cheque dishonour and may appeal as a victim under Section 372, rather than proceeding under Section 378 CrPC.

The judgment also referred to Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat.

The State noted that the issue was pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12350/2024.

The High Court relied on the cited decisions treating a Section 138 complainant as a victim with a right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS. On that basis, it directed that the appeal be sent to the Sessions Court, where it would be registered and treated as a victim’s appeal.

Although the State drew attention to the pending larger-Bench reference, the Court made no determination of the issue’s merits beyond directing the transfer. It expressly stated that it had not examined the merits of the acquittal.

The High Court did not address the merits of the acquittal.