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

In brief

The question

1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding 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.

The court held

The High Court did not rule on the merits but disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire case record to the concerned Sessions Court.

It also directed

The Sessions Court is directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS, re-number it, and issue fresh notices to the parties; the lower Appellate Court was requested to expedite the disposal due to the time already elapsed.

01Facts

The appellant (original complainant) filed an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the BNSS challenging the judgment dated 01.07.2024 by the 16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

p. 1

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

p. 1

The High Court examined the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in light of recent judicial precedents regarding the status of a complainant as a "victim".

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding 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.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

ii.2. Whether the current appeal filed in the High Court should be transferred to the appropriate Sessions Court for adjudication.

p. 5 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 (3) GLH 747), which held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, and thus possesses a statutory right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS to the immediate superior court (Sessions Court) without requiring special leave under Section 378(4).

pp. 2-4

The Court also referenced Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat regarding the procedural hierarchy of such appeals.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 2 Section 200 Section 372 Section 374 Section 378

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413 Section 419

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 143

04Reasoning

The High Court observed that while the issue is currently pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024, the prevailing authoritative pronouncement in Celestium Financial must be followed.

pp. 2-3

The Court reasoned that since the complainant and the victim are one and the same in cheque dishonour cases, the right to appeal is not circumscribed by the conditions of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶ 7.9

Consequently, following the hierarchy established by the proviso to Section 372, the appropriate forum for this appeal is the Sessions Court rather than the High Court.

¶ 7.12

The Court emphasized that this transfer is subject to the final outcome of the reference pending before the Supreme Court.

p. 3

05Holding

The High Court did not rule on the merits but disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire case record to the concerned Sessions Court.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF