The Gujarat High Court has held that an appeal against the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be pursued before the Sessions Court, reiterating that the complainant is a “victim” entitled to invoke the statutory right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak passed the order while disposing of an appeal filed by Shree Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. challenging the acquittal of the accused by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khambhaliya, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the hearing, counsel for the respondent as well as the State submitted that, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 (3) GLH 747, a complainant in a cheque dishonour case is to be treated as a victim and therefore has a statutory right to file an appeal before the immediate appellate court, namely the Sessions Court, instead of approaching the High Court under Section 378 CrPC.
The High Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s observations in Celestium Financial, where it was held that the payee or holder of a dishonoured cheque is the victim of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now Section 413 BNSS) without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. The Supreme Court had reasoned that Parliament intended to confer an independent and unconditional right of appeal upon victims, placing them on par with convicted accused who enjoy a statutory right of appeal.
The Court also took note of the State’s submission that although the issue has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in a pending Special Leave Petition owing to its far-reaching consequences, the law declared in Celestium Financial presently governs the field.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal with a direction to the Registry to transfer the matter to the competent Sessions Court. It directed that the appeal be treated as one filed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS, be renumbered accordingly, and proceeded with after issuance of notice to the parties. The Registry was further directed to transmit the complete record of the case to the lower appellate court without delay.
Considering that the litigation had remained pending for a considerable period, the High Court requested the Sessions Court to endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, while clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying cheque dishonour dispute.
