A victim’s appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal lies before the Sessions Court under Section 413 BNSS.

The applicant had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution under Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and acquitted the respondent after the complainant failed to appear or produce evidence despite being given a last opportunity.

The complainant sought leave under Section 419(4) BNSS to appeal the acquittal before the High Court.

Whether a complainant/victim may challenge an acquittal by a Magistrate under Section 419(4) BNSS before the High Court, or must pursue the appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS before another forum.

Whether the applicant’s request for leave to appeal under Section 419(4) BNSS was maintainable before the High Court.

Section 279 BNSS provides for acquittal where a complainant fails to appear, subject to the Magistrate’s discretion to adjourn the hearing.

Under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, a victim may appeal an acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against a conviction by that court; Section 415(3) provides that an appeal from a conviction by a Magistrate lies to the Court of Session.

Relying on Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1997, the Court held that a victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 413 is not governed by Section 419 BNSS and that an appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal lies before the Court of Session.

The order under challenge resulted in the respondent’s acquittal, but the applicant’s status as complainant/victim entitled him to invoke the victim’s appellate right under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS.

Applying Subhas Chandra Sarkar, the Court concluded that the appropriate forum was the jurisdictional Court of Session, not the High Court under Section 419(4) BNSS.

The Court did not assess the merits of the dismissal under Section 279.

The applicant was granted liberty to pursue the remedy available before the competent court, namely the jurisdictional Court of Session; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the acquittal.