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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [now Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] challenging the judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the 5th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara

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

The matter was brought before the High Court of Gujarat to determine the appropriate forum for the appeal in light of evolving precedents

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747], which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and possesses a statutory right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of the BNSS) to the Court immediately superior in hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court

It further referred to the High Court’s own ruling in Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569], reaffirming the transfer of such appeals to the appropriate lower appellate forum

The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial clarified that a victim’s right to appeal is absolute and not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4) of the CrPC

The Court reasoned that since the complainant in a cheque dishonour case is the one who suffers the impact of the offence, they occupy the status of a "victim"

Consequently, the proper forum for an appeal against a Magistrate’s order of acquittal in a Section 138 case is the Sessions Court, not the High Court

Although it was noted that a reference for a larger Bench is pending in the Supreme Court (SLP Crl. No. 12350/2024), the Court determined that the matter must currently be governed by the existing authoritative pronouncements and thus be transferred to the Sessions Court for adjudication on merits

The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court at Vadodara for expedited disposal

The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as a fresh appeal, issue notices to the parties, and decide the case without being influenced by the High Court's transfer order