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

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

On February 16, 2012, the 8th Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, passed a judgment and order acquitting the respondent

The appellant initially preferred this appeal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

During the pendency of the appeal, the legal landscape regarding the forum for appeals against acquittals in Section 138 cases shifted due to recent judicial precedents regarding the status of a complainant as a "victim"

1. Whether the original complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is considered a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC

2. Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal in a Section 138 case should be filed before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS, rather than the High Court

proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS), which grants a "victim" the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction

Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. [2025 (3) GLH 747], which established that a complainant in a Section 138 case is a "victim" because they suffered the impact of the dishonored cheque

Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569] regarding the procedural transfer of such appeals to the Sessions Court

The Court reasoned that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that a complainant and a victim are one and the same in Section 138 proceedings, the complainant possesses an absolute right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

This right is distinct from and superior to the right of a complainant to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4), as the Parliament intended to provide victims a direct avenue for redress.

The Court noted that while a reference for a larger bench is pending before the Supreme Court (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024), the current prevailing law mandates that such appeals be heard by the immediate superior court—the Sessions Court.

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record, including certified copies or original proceedings, to the relevant Sessions Court forthwith. The Sessions Court is directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS and to endeavor to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible given its long pendency.