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

The appellant (original complainant) filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [or Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] against the judgment dated January 10, 2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhuj.

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

The High Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear this appeal in light of recent judicial precedents regarding the hierarchy of appeals for victims.

1. Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act is to be treated as a "victim" and consequently required to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court rather than the High Court.

The Court primarily applied the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC [and the corresponding Section 413 of the 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 (i.e., the Sessions Court).

The Court relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747], which held that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

Regarding the transfer of such appeals, the Court referenced Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569].

The Court reasoned that under the law clarified in Celestium Financial, there is no distinction between a victim of a penal offence and a person who suffers from the dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The Court noted that because the complainant and the victim are the same person in NI Act cases, they possess an "absolute right" to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which is superior to the State's right and does not require seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4).

Consequently, the Court determined that the appeal must be heard by the court immediately superior in the hierarchy—the Sessions Court—rather than the High Court.

The Court acknowledged that while a reference on this issue is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the current authoritative pronouncement must be followed, subject to the final outcome of that reference.

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

The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (or Section 413 of the BNSS), register it accordingly, and endeavor to dispose of it expeditiously without being influenced by the High Court's lack of comments on the merits.