Complainant in Section 138 NI Act cases is a victim entitled to appeal acquittal before the Sessions Court.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") against the respondent-accused.

On February 7, 2018, the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, passed a judgment acquitting the accused

The appellant subsequently filed the present appeal against acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC") / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS")

During the proceedings, the court considered the appropriate forum for such appeals in light of evolving precedents

1. Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC

2. Whether the High Court should retain the appeal or transfer it to the Sessions Court in view of recent judicial pronouncements

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. [2025 (3) GLH 747], which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC

Consequently, such a victim has a statutory right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (or Section 413 of the BNSS) to the Court immediately superior to the trial court, which is the Sessions Court

This right is distinct from and not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC

The court also noted the internal precedent of Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat

The Court observed that although the matter was brought before the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC, the legal landscape regarding the rights of a complainant in dishonor of cheque cases has shifted.

Following the Celestium Financial ruling, the complainant and the victim are deemed the same person in Section 138 proceedings

Since the Parliament intended for victims to have an unconditional right of appeal to the superior court in the hierarchy, the proper forum for an appeal against an acquittal by a Magistrate is the Sessions Court

The Court noted that even though a reference to a larger bench is pending before the Supreme Court regarding these far-reaching consequences, the current authoritative pronouncement necessitates transferring the matter to the Sessions Court to ensure the victim's rights are exercised in the correct forum

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court

The Sessions Court was directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, without the High Court expressing any opinion on the merits