The Karnataka High Court has clarified a critical procedural question: where does a victim appeal an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? In a significant ruling, the Court held that such appeals lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, not the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. This judgment underscores the evolving jurisprudence on victims' rights in criminal appeals.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, P.P. Aaradhya Math, a retired grasline division employee, filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Smt. Pushpa, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by her. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 22.12.2021, prompting the appellant to file this appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC before the Karnataka High Court.
Key Facts
- The appellant alleged that the respondent issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds
- The complaint was filed under Section 138 NI Act, which prescribes punishment for dishonour of cheques
- The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 22.12.2021
- The appellant filed this appeal on Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2022 under Section 378(4) CrPC
Procedural History
- 22.12.2021: Trial Court acquitted the respondent
- 2022: Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2022 before Karnataka High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC
- 03.06.2026: High Court delivered the present judgment
Relief Sought
The appellant sought conviction of the respondent under Section 138 NI Act and setting aside of the acquittal order dated 22.12.2021.
The Legal Issue
The central question was: Can a victim appeal an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act directly before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, or must such an appeal lie before the Sessions Court under Section 372 CrPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the appeal was maintainable before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, which permits appeals against acquittal by complainants in certain cases. The appellant relied on the procedural framework of Section 378 CrPC to argue that the High Court had jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 372 CrPC, which was amended in 2009 to insert a proviso allowing victims to appeal against acquittals. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, which held:
"10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC."
The Court observed that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC confers an independent right on victims to appeal acquittals, irrespective of whether they are complainants. This right is exercisable before the Sessions Court, not the High Court. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial clearly establishes that appeals against acquittal by victims must be filed under Section 372 CrPC, not Section 378(4) CrPC.
The Court held that since the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such appeals, the appeal was not maintainable before it. Accordingly, the Court directed the transfer of the appeal to the jurisdictional Sessions Court for adjudication on merits.
The Verdict
The appeal was not adjudicated on merits by the High Court. Instead, the Court transferred the appeal to the jurisdictional Sessions Court for further proceedings. The parties were directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 30.06.2026, and the Registry was ordered to transmit the appeal papers to the Sessions Court. The appellant was granted liberty to amend the cause title and provisions as necessary.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victims Must Appeal Acquittals Before Sessions Court
This judgment clarifies that victims appealing acquittals under Section 138 NI Act or other offences cannot directly approach the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. Instead, they must file such appeals before the Sessions Court under Section 372 CrPC. Practitioners must:
- Ensure appeals against acquittal by victims are filed before the Sessions Court, not the High Court
- Amend pleadings to invoke Section 372 CrPC instead of Section 378(4) CrPC
- Be mindful of the jurisdictional limitations of the High Court in such matters
The Proviso to Section 372 CrPC Is an Independent Remedy
The Court's reliance on Celestium Financial underscores that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is an independent remedy for victims, not dependent on their status as complainants. This holding expands the scope of victims' rights in criminal appeals and ensures that:
- Victims can appeal acquittals even if they are not formal complainants
- The remedy under Section 372 CrPC is distinct from Section 378 CrPC
- Courts must give full effect to the 2009 amendment to Section 372 CrPC
Procedural Compliance Is Critical
This judgment serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in criminal appeals. Practitioners must:
- Verify the correct forum for filing appeals based on the nature of the case
- Ensure appeals are filed under the appropriate statutory provision
- Avoid jurisdictional errors that could lead to dismissal or transfer of appeals
