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

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the BNSS challenging the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the 14th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

The trial court had acquitted the respondent (accused) of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The High Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal or if it should be transferred to the Sessions Court based on recent judicial precedents.

1. Whether the complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case 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 present appeal, originally filed in the High Court, should be transferred to the relevant Sessions Court for adjudication.

The court applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747/2025 INSC 143], which held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

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

This right is independent of the leave-to-appeal requirement under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

The High Court observed that since the Supreme Court has categorized Section 138 complainants as "victims," the proper forum for an appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal order is the Sessions Court, not the High Court via Section 378.

Although the issue has been referred to a larger Bench in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024, the Court held that the current authoritative pronouncement must be followed subject to the final outcome of said reference.

Relying on Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569], the Court reasoned that the appeal must be regularized by transferring it to the hierarchical superior court to ensure the victim's right to appeal is 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 lower Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously without being influenced by the High Court's observations on merits.