Complainant in Section 138 NI Act Proceedings is a Victim Entitled to Appeal Acquittal Before Sessions Court

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.

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

During 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".

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).

2. Whether the High Court should entertain the appeal under Section 378 or transfer it to the concerned Sessions Court.

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.

The 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.

Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569] regarding the transfer of such appeals.

The Court reasoned that since the complainant suffers the impact of a dishonored cheque, they fall squarely within the definition of a "victim".

By 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.

The 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.

Consequently, the High Court determined that it was not the appropriate forum to hear the merits of the appeal at first instance.

The 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.

The 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.