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 case under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal directly before 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 complainant is a victim and has the right to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS.

It also directed

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the entire case record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court at Gandhidham - Kutch; the Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as a fresh appeal, issue notice to the parties, and endeavor to dispose of it expeditiously.

01Facts

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC and Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

p. 1

The appeal challenged the judgment dated 11.01.2024 by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

p. 1

During the proceedings, the High Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal or if the matter should be transferred to the Sessions Court based on recent judicial precedents regarding the rights of victims.

p. 2

02Issues

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

p. 2

ii.2. Whether the current appeal filed before the High Court should be transferred to the immediate superior court (Sessions Court) for adjudication.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (and its equivalent Section 413 of the BNSS) regarding the victim's right to appeal.

p. 2

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 (3) GLH 747), which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" and possesses a specific right to appeal to the Sessions Court without seeking special leave under Section 378(4).

pp. 2-3

The Court also referenced Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569) to affirm the procedural hierarchy of appeals.

p. 2, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 372 Section 374 Section 200 Section 2

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 clarified that a payee or holder of a dishonored cheque has suffered the impact of an offence, they must be classified as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

¶ 7.12

The Court observed that the right of a victim to appeal is an absolute right that should not be circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" from the High Court under Section 378(4), placing them on par with a convicted person's right to appeal under Section 374.

¶ 7.8, 7.12

Applying this to the present facts, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for the appellant's challenge against the acquittal is the Sessions Court, even while noting that the issue of a "larger bench" reference is pending before the Supreme Court.

p. 3

05Holding

The High Court held that the complainant is a victim and has the right to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS.

p. 5

pp. 5-6

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF