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 challenging the judgment and order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhuj-Kuchchh.

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

The appeal was originally filed in the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC/Section 419 of the BNSS.

During the pendency of the appeal, the legal landscape regarding the forum for such appeals shifted due to recent judicial precedents regarding the status of a complainant as a "victim".

1. Whether the original complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding 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 High Court should transfer the pending appeal to the concerned Sessions Court in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran.

The Court applied the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and corresponding Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), 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 order of conviction.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747], which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC because they have suffered the impact of the dishonoured cheque.

The High Court observed that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial clarified that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

The Court reasoned that since the complainant and the victim are the same person in Section 138 cases, the appeal against acquittal should be heard by the court immediately superior in hierarchy to the Trial Court—specifically, the Sessions Court.

Despite the State’s point that a reference on this issue is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court determined that the current prevailing law required transferring the matter to the appropriate lower Appellate Court to ensure the victim's statutory rights are upheld.

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the Sessions Court, Bhuj-Kuchchh, and instructed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, without entering into the merits of the case at this stage.