A Section 138 complainant’s acquittal appeal lies before the Sessions Court as a victim appeal.

The original complainant appealed under Section 378 CrPC / Section 419 BNSS against the Trial Court’s order acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The parties addressed whether, in light of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the complainant’s appeal should instead be treated as a victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to the Sessions Court.

The State pointed out that the relevant issue was pending before the Supreme Court, which had indicated that a larger Bench’s authoritative ruling was desirable.

Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may pursue an appeal against acquittal as a victim under Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS before the Sessions Court.

Whether the appeal pending before the High Court should be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court, notwithstanding the pending Supreme Court proceedings on the issue.

Section 372 CrPC provides a victim a right of appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; under the cited decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is treated as the victim of the alleged cheque-dishonour offence and may appeal under that proviso before the court immediately superior to the trial court.

The corresponding BNSS provision is Section 413.

The Court also relied on Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat.

The judgment records, however, that the Celestium Financial issue was pending before the Supreme Court and had been referred for authoritative consideration by a larger Bench.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court considered the Section 138 complainant to be a victim entitled to appeal under Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS before the Sessions Court, rather than continue the appeal in the High Court under Section 378 CrPC / Section 419 BNSS.

Although the State drew attention to the pending Supreme Court proceedings, the Court directed transfer in accordance with the cited decisions; it did not determine the appeal’s merits and made the transfer subject to the eventual outcome of the Supreme Court reference.

That court is to treat and number it as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS, issue notice to the parties, and endeavour to decide it expeditiously.

The High Court expressly left the merits undecided.