Section 138 complainants may appeal acquittals before Sessions Courts as victims under Section 372 CrPC.

The original complainant filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the Trial Court’s order dated 11 November 2020 acquitting the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The High Court considered whether, in light of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran and related decisions, the complainant’s appeal should be pursued before the Sessions Court as a victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The State submitted that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court for authoritative consideration.

Whether the complainant’s appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case should be transferred to the Sessions Court and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

Whether the High Court should decide the merits of the acquittal appeal at that stage.

The Court relied on the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants a victim a right to appeal against an acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies from the trial court’s order, and on Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, its corresponding provision.

Applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the Court noted that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also a victim and may appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the immediately superior court, the Sessions Court, rather than proceeding under Section 378 CrPC.

The Court also relied on Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat.

It noted that the issue in Celestium Financial was pending before the Supreme Court for consideration by a larger Bench and that the matter was therefore subject to the final outcome of that reference.

The complainant’s appeal had been instituted in the High Court under Section 378 CrPC, but the Court considered the decisions recognising a Section 138 complainant as a victim entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

On that basis, it directed that the appeal be transferred to the Sessions Court and treated and numbered there as a victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC or Section 413 BNSS.

Because the governing issue remained pending before the Supreme Court, the transfer direction was made subject to the final outcome of that reference.

The High Court did not examine the merits of the acquittal.

The Sessions Court was asked to endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously; the High Court expressly left the merits open.