Complainant in Section 138 NI Act proceedings is a "victim" entitled to appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC (or Section 419 of the BNSS) challenging the judgment dated 28.06.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural).

The Trial Court had acquitted the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

While the appeal was pending before the High Court, a shift in legal precedent occurred regarding the forum for appeals by complainants in cheque bounce cases.

1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments 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.

2. Whether the present appeal, originally filed in the High Court, should be transferred to the Sessions Court in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

The court primarily applied the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) / Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (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.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent 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 in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

The court also noted the reference to a larger Bench in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024 regarding the authoritative pronouncement on this specific right.

The High Court observed that according to Celestium Financial, there is no distinction between a victim of a traditional penal offence and a victim of a "deemed offence" under Section 138 of the NI Act.

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

Since the Sessions Court is the immediate superior court in the hierarchy to the Magistrate, it is the appropriate forum for such appeals.

The court noted that because the State's involvement in NI Act cases is minimal (being private complaints), the complainant must be empowered to seek appellate remedy as a victim.

Consequently, the High Court determined it lacked the primary jurisdiction to hear this appeal as an initial appellate forum.

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court.

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 BNSS), issue fresh notices, and endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously.