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

The appellant (original complainant) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the dishonor of a cheque.

On 26.08.2022, the 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, passed a judgment acquitting the respondent-accused.

The appellant preferred an appeal against this acquittal directly before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the BNSS.

During the pendency of the appeal, the legal landscape regarding the forum of appeal for complainants in NI Act cases evolved through recent judicial precedents.

1. Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 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 the BNSS.

2. Whether the present appeal filed in the High Court should be transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court for adjudication.

The court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747), which holds that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

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 to which an appeal ordinarily lies against a conviction—the Sessions Court.

The court also noted the reference to a larger bench in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024 regarding this issue.

The High Court observed that since the complainant in a Section 138 proceeding is the party who suffered the financial impact of the dishonored cheque, they satisfy the criteria of a "victim".

The court reasoned that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and not subject to the restrictive requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Aligning with the precedent in Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat, the court determined that the appropriate forum for this appeal is the Sessions Court rather than the High Court.

The court clarified that while the matter is subject to a final authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, current binding precedents necessitate the transfer of such appeals to the subordinate appellate hierarchy.

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court.