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

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2014 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

The Trial Court had acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

The High Court examined the maintainability of this appeal before it in light of recent legal developments regarding the forum for appeals against acquittals in cheque bounce cases.

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 / Section 413 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the current appeal pending before the High Court should be transferred to the Sessions Court based on prevailing precedents.

The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (and its successor Section 413 of the BNSS) regarding the victim's right to appeal.

The Supreme Court precedent Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747), which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" and has a specific right to appeal to the Sessions Court, superior in hierarchy to the Magistrate.

Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569) concerning the administrative transfer of such matters.

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding is a victim of the alleged dishonour, they need not seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC but can invoke the absolute right under the proviso to Section 372.

The Court noted that the right of a victim is on par with that of a convicted accused and should not be circumscribed by conditions.

Although the primary issue is currently pending a reference to a larger bench in the Supreme Court (SLP Crl. No. 12350/2024), the High Court determined that the matter must be remanded to the Sessions Court to align with the existing authoritative pronouncements, subject to the final outcome of said reference.

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

The Sessions Court was further directed to number the appeal and make an endeavor to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible given the time elapsed.