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

In brief

The question

1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS

The court held

The High Court held that the appeal is maintainable before the Sessions Court as a victim's appeal.

It also directed

The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire case record to the concerned Sessions Court. 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, number it accordingly, and endeavor to dispose of it expeditiously

01Facts

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated August 5, 2022, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which acquitted the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

pp. 1-2 · ¶ 1

The appeal was initially filed before the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). During the proceedings, the parties noted recent judicial shifts regarding the proper forum for such appeals

p. 2 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal in 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 pending before the High Court should be transferred to the Sessions Court in light of recent precedents

p. 5 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 413 of the BNSS), which grants a 'victim' the right to appeal against an acquittal

p. 4 · ¶ 7.9

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. [2025 (3) GLH 747], which determined that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is indeed a "victim" because they suffered the impact of the dishonored cheque

pp. 2-4 · ¶ 3, 7.8

The Court also referenced Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No. 12753 of 2019] regarding the procedural right to move the immediately superior court

p. 2 · ¶ 4

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 419 Section 413

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 143

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial has clarified that a complainant and a victim are synonymous in the context of Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant possesses an absolute right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC

pp. 3-4 · ¶ 7.8-7.9

This right is unconditional and distinct from the State's requirement to seek "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4)

pp. 4-5 · ¶ 7.12

Consequently, because the Sessions Court is the court immediately superior to the Magistrate who passed the acquittal order, the appeal properly lies there rather than the High Court

p. 2 · ¶ 4

The Court noted the pendency of a reference to a larger bench in the Supreme Court but held that the current directive remains to transfer such matters to the concerned Sessions Courts subject to final outcomes

p. 3 · ¶ 6 · p. 5 · ¶ 8