### Complainant in Section 138 NI Act proceedings is a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the BNSS challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, which acquitted the respondent-accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The matter reached the High Court for adjudication on whether the appeal should be heard by the High Court or transferred to a lower appellate court based on the evolving definition of "victim" in cheque bounce cases.

1. Whether a complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the present appeal filed before the High Court should be transferred to the Sessions Court in light of recent judicial precedents.

The Court primarily applied the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and its equivalent 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 sentence.

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

The Court also noted the pending reference in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024 regarding an authoritative pronouncement on this issue.

The Court observed that under the NI Act, the complainant is the party who suffers financial impact due to the dishonour of a cheque, thus fitting the definition of a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

Following the ratio in Celestium Financial, the Court reasoned that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" as required for the State or a complainant under Section 378.

Consequently, because the Sessions Court is the immediate superior hierarchy to the Magistrate’s Court, the appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 matter must be heard there rather than the High Court.

The Court held that the matter must be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS and instructed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.