Complainant Under Section 138 of NI Act Qualifies as Victim Entitled to Appeal Acquittal Before Sessions Court

The appellant (original complainant) filed two criminal appeals under Section 378 of the CrPC (and under Section 419 of the BNSS) challenging the judgment and order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

The Trial Court had acquitted the respondent-accused of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

While these appeals were pending before the High Court, the respondents argued that the matters must be transferred to the Sessions Court based on recent judicial precedents regarding the forum for appeals by complainants in cheque bounce cases.

1. Whether a complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is to be treated as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby entitling them to file an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372.

2. Whether the pending appeals before the High Court should be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.

the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (corresponding to 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.

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" as they have suffered impact/loss due to the dishonor of a cheque.

Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569) regarding the procedural mandate to transfer such cases to the superior hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court.

The Court noted that in Section 138 NI Act proceedings, the complainant and the victim are identical because it is the "payee" or "holder in due course" who suffers the financial injury.

Reasoning from Celestium Financial, the Court observed that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and should not be more Restricted than the right of an accused to appeal a conviction under Section 374 CrPC.

The Court found that requiring a victim (complainant) to seek "special leave" from the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC would contradict the legislative intent of the proviso to Section 372.

Consequently, even though the matter is currently pending a reference to a larger bench in the Supreme Court (SLP Crl. No. 12350/2024), the High Court determined that existing law necessitates the transfer of these appeals to the Sessions Court for adjudication as an appeal by a victim.

The High Court disposed of both appeals by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith. The Sessions Court was directed to treat these as victim appeals, re-number them, issue fresh notices, and endeavor to dispose of them expeditiously, subject to the final outcome of the reference pending before the Supreme Court.