01Facts
The applicant (original complainant) filed an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC (Section 419 of BNSS) challenging the judgment dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan.
¶ 1The Trial Court had acquitted the respondent (accused) of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.
¶ 1During the proceedings, the State and the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the forum of appeal based on recent judicial precedents regarding the status of a complainant as a "victim".
¶ 302Issues
i.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 BNSS).
¶ 4ii.2. Whether the High Court should entertain the appeal under Section 378 or transfer it to the concerned Sessions Court.
¶ 803Law Applied
Proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (Section 413 of 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 sentence.
¶ 4The Supreme Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747 / 2026 INSC 44] para. 7.12Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569] regarding the transfer of such appeals.
¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 2Section 200Section 372Section 374Section 378
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413Section 419
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138Section 143
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the complainant suffers the impact of a dishonored cheque, they fall squarely within the definition of a "victim".
¶ 7.8By virtue of this status, the complainant possesses an absolute right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which does not require the "leave to appeal" mandated for the State or a complainant under Section 378.
¶ 7.9, 7.12The Court observed that even though the Supreme Court has referred the issue of an "authoritative pronouncement" to a larger Bench in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024, the current prevailing law mandates that such appeals be heard by the immediate superior hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court.
¶ 4, 6Consequently, the High Court determined that it was not the appropriate forum to hear the merits of the appeal at first instance.
¶ 805Holding
The Court held that the complainant is a victim under Section 138 of the NI Act and has the right to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the CrPC.
¶ 8The High Court granted leave to appeal solely to facilitate the transfer and disposed of the application by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record to the concerned Sessions Court.
¶ 8The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (Section 413 of BNSS) and to make an endeavor to dispose of it expeditiously.
¶ 8, 9Original Court PDF
DARJI ASHOKKUMAR RAMESHBHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
