Cheque-bounce complainants can appeal acquittals before Sessions Court without High Court leave, MP High Court says

The complainant filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the respondent’s acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the JMFC, Neemuch, in Criminal Case No. 1598/2013.

Counsel also sought a separate order transferring the proposed appeal to the concerned Sessions Court.

The High Court considered the applicable transfer and victim-appeal provisions, together with the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.

1. Whether the High Court could invoke Section 447 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 407 of the CrPC) to transfer the proposed appeal to the Sessions Court.

2. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may appeal an acquittal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, without seeking leave under Section 419(4) BNSS.

Section 447 BNSS (corresponding to Section 407 CrPC) empowers the High Court to transfer cases and appeals between subordinate criminal courts or to itself; it does not provide a basis for the requested transfer of this proposed appeal to the Sessions Court.

In M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, the Supreme Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a “victim” within Section 2(y) BNSS (corresponding to Section 2(wa) CrPC) and may appeal an acquittal under Section 413 BNSS (corresponding to the proviso to Section 372 CrPC).

Accordingly, such a complainant need not obtain leave under Section 419(4) BNSS.

The Court rejected reliance on Section 447 BNSS as a route to transfer the proposed appeal to the Sessions Court, because that provision concerns transfers between criminal courts or to the High Court, rather than the transfer sought here.

It then applied Celestium Financial to conclude that the complainant could pursue an acquittal appeal as a victim under the applicable appeal provision without first obtaining leave from the High Court.

The Court did not examine the merits of the acquittal.

The Sessions Court was directed not to insist on limitation if the appeal was filed within that period and to decide it in accordance with law.

The Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after retaining an attested photocopy, and the case record was to be sent back to the JMFC.

The High Court expressly left the merits open.