Complainants under Section 138 NI Act are "Victims" entitled to file appeals against acquittal before Sessions Courts.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the dishonor of a cheque.

On 20.11.2018, the 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, passed an order acquitting the respondent-accused.

The appellant initially preferred an appeal against this acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378 of the CrPC / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

During the pendency of this appeal, recent judicial precedents emerged regarding the appropriate forum for such appeals.

the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS), which grants a "victim" the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (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 suffer loss due to the dishonor of a cheque.

Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram Vs. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569) regarding the maintainability of such appeals before the Sessions Court.

The Court observed that while the matter is currently pending as an appeal against acquittal in the High Court, the legal landscape has shifted following Celestium Financial.

The Court reasoned that since the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is synonymous with the "victim," they possess a statutory right to appeal to the court immediately superior in hierarchy to the Trial Court—the Sessions Court—without requiring special leave under Section 378(4).

The Court found that the Parliament intended for victims to have an absolute right of appeal equivalent to a convicted person's right under Section 374.

Consequently, rather than deciding the merits, the High Court determined the case must be redirected to the appropriate appellate forum.

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record to the concerned Sessions Court.

The Sessions Court was directed to issue notice to the parties and endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously, clarifying that the High Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.