Complainant in Section 138 NI Act Proceedings is a Victim Entitled to Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint against the respondent (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

The trial court (3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural) passed a judgment on 20.10.2011, acquitting the respondent.

The appellant challenged this acquittal by filing a Criminal Appeal before the Gujarat High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the BNSS.

During the pendency, a jurisdictional question arose regarding whether such appeals should be heard by the High Court or the Sessions Court.

1. Whether a 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 CrPC

2. Whether the current appeal should be transferred from the High Court to the concerned Sessions Court in light of recent judicial precedents

the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (Section 413 of the BNSS), which grants a 'victim' the right to appeal against an order of acquittal

established that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC because they suffer the impact of the dishonored cheque [Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747)]

appeals lie before the immediate superior court (Sessions Court) rather than the High Court under Section 378(4) [Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569)]

The Court reasoned that the right of a victim to appeal under Section 372 CrPC is an absolute right that is not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4).

Since the complainant and the victim are the same person in cheque bounce cases, the court held that the hierarchy of appeals must follow the general rule where the Sessions Court is the immediate appellate forum for orders passed by a Magistrate.

Although a reference on this issue is currently pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12350/2024, the High Court determined that the existing authoritative pronouncements necessitate transferring such long-pending matters to the lower Appellate Court to ensure the victim's statutory right is exercised in the correct forum.

Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the entire case record to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the Section 372 proviso, issue fresh notices, and endeavor to dispose of the case expeditiously.