Complainant in Section 138 NI Act is a Victim Entitled to Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC (now Section 419 of BNSS) challenging the judgment dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jam-Khambhaliya, which acquitted the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

During the pendency of this appeal, recent judicial developments raised questions regarding the appropriate forum for such appeals, specifically whether a complainant in a Section 138 case should be treated as a "victim" entitled to appeal to the Sessions Court rather than the High Court.

1. Whether a complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "victim" and consequently entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (Section 413 of BNSS).

2. Whether the present appeal, originally filed in the High Court, should be transferred to the Sessions Court for adjudication.

proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which grants a "victim" the right to appeal against acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction.

Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 (3) GLH 747), which held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a victim of the cheque dishonor and possesses the right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4).

Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram Vs. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569).

The Court observed that under the prevailing legal interpretation established in Celestium Financial, the roles of "complainant" and "victim" merge in Section 138 proceedings because the payee is the person who suffers the direct impact of the dishonored instrument.

The Court reasoned that since the victim has an absolute, unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS, such appeals should be heard by the court immediately superior in hierarchy to the Trial Court—specifically the Sessions Court—rather than the High Court.

Consequently, because the Sessions Court is the appropriate forum for the "victim's" appeal, the High Court determined it lacked the primary jurisdiction to hear this matter as a direct appeal under Section 378.

The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire case record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code/Section 413 of BNSS, issue fresh notices to parties, and endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the acquittal.