01Facts
The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, regarding the dishonor of a cheque.
p. 1On March 12, 2009, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Unjha, passed a judgment acquitting the respondent-accused.
p. 1The appellant initially preferred this appeal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, during the pendency of the appeal, a significant change in the legal landscape occurred regarding the forum for appeals by complainants in NI Act cases.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether an original complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case 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 · ¶ 4ii.2. Whether the present appeal, pending before the High Court, should be transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court in light of recent judicial precedents.
p. 2 · ¶ 303Law Applied
complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
p. 3, para 7.12Consequently, such a person has an absolute right to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to the Court immediately superior in hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court, without needing to seek special leave under Section 378(4).
p. 4, para 7.12The Court also referenced Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat regarding the procedural necessity of remanding such matters to the appropriate appellate forum.
p. 2, para 4Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 2Section 200Section 372Section 374Section 378
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413Section 419
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138Section 143
04Reasoning
The High Court observed that the legal status of an NI Act complainant has been clarified by the Apex Court; they are synonymous with a "victim" because they have suffered the impact of the dishonored cheque.
p. 3, para 7.9The Court reasoned that since the right of a victim to appeal is now categorized under Section 372 of the CrPC (proviso), the Sessions Court—being the court immediately superior to the Magistrate—is the proper forum for such an appeal.
p. 2, para 4While noting that a reference to a larger bench is pending in the Supreme Court (SLP Crl. No. 12350/2024) regarding the "far-reaching consequences" of this shift, the Court held that the current authoritative pronouncement must be followed, leading to the administrative necessity of transferring the case file to the lower Appellate Court.
p. 3, para 6 · p. 5, para 805Holding
The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court.
p. 5, para 8It held that the appeal shall be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (or Section 413 of the BNSS) and be numbered accordingly by the Sessions Court.
p. 5, para 8The learned lower Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, given the long pendency since 2009.
p. 6, para 9Original Court PDF
MANGALDAS RAMJIBHAI VESTIYANvsPARMAR RAMESHBHAI HARGOVANDAS (UNJHAWALA)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
