The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a victim in a criminal case instituted by private complaint retains the statutory right to appeal an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, even when the case does not originate from a police investigation. This ruling affirms the expanded appellate rights granted to victims under the new criminal procedure framework.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Indore Municipal Corporation, acted as the complainant in a criminal case filed under Section 7(i)(ii)(v) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case was initiated through a private complaint, not a police report. The Special Judicial Magistrate, after trial, acquitted the respondent on 31.10.2023. The appellant, asserting its status as a victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, filed a criminal appeal under Section 419 of BNSS, 2023, challenging the acquittal.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed by the Indore Municipal Corporation, acting in its regulatory capacity under the Food Adulteration Act
- The case was based on alleged sale of adulterated food products by the respondent
- The trial court acquitted the accused on grounds of insufficient evidence
- The appellant did not seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC (now Section 419 BNSS)
- The appeal was filed directly under Section 419 BNSS, which permits appeals by the State or the Central Government against acquittals
Procedural History
- 2009: Criminal Case No. 2614851/2009 instituted by private complaint before Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore
- 31.10.2023: Trial court acquitted the accused
- 2024: Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 3128 of 2024 under Section 419 BNSS
- 26.03.2026: Hearing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant (Indore Municipal Corporation)
- Argued that as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC, it is entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (equivalent to proviso to Section 372 CrPC)
- Contended that the purpose of the proviso is to empower victims to challenge acquittals irrespective of their role as complainant
- Relied on Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320) to establish that victim status alone confers appellate rights
For the Respondent (Sudhanshu)
- Argued that Section 419 BNSS applies only to appeals by the State or Central Government
- Contended that the appellant, as a private complainant, cannot invoke Section 419 BNSS
- Asserted that the appeal is barred by limitation and lacks statutory basis
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the acquittal order and direction for retrial or conviction of the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a victim who files a private complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and obtains an acquittal, may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023, without seeking special leave under Section 419 BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran to argue that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now Section 413 BNSS) grants an independent right of appeal to any victim, regardless of whether they are the complainant. It emphasized that the 2009 amendment to CrPC was intended to rectify the historical exclusion of victims from appellate rights. The appellant contended that the Food Adulteration Act is a penal statute where the Municipal Corporation, as a regulatory body enforcing public health standards, qualifies as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC. It further argued that requiring it to seek special leave under Section 419 BNSS would defeat the legislative intent behind the victim-centric amendment.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that Section 419 BNSS is the exclusive route for appeals against acquittals by non-State parties, and that the proviso to Section 413 BNSS applies only to cases where the prosecution is conducted by the State. He contended that the appellant, as a private complainant, had no independent right to appeal and must follow the procedure under Section 419 BNSS, which requires special leave. He also raised the issue of limitation, asserting that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative intent behind the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, now mirrored in Section 413 BNSS, and found that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran had unequivocally held that the right to appeal under the proviso is not contingent on the victim being the complainant. The Court noted:
"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 CrPC."
The Court held that the appellant, as the entity that initiated the prosecution under a public health statute, suffered direct harm to its regulatory function and public interest mandate, thereby qualifying as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC. The Court further observed that the distinction between a complainant and a victim is not jurisdictional but functional: a victim may be a complainant, but not all complainants are victims in the statutory sense. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that Section 419 BNSS is the only available remedy, noting that the proviso to Section 413 BNSS operates as an independent and alternative route. The Court emphasized that the object of the proviso is to ensure that victims are not left without recourse merely because the State chose not to prosecute.
The Verdict
The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023, within four months from the date of this order. The Court clarified that if the appeal is filed within this period, the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the respondent or the Appellate Court. If the appeal was already filed before this Court but was dismissed on limitation grounds, or if a condonation application is pending, the Appellate Court shall decide limitation in accordance with the Limitation Act, 1963. The trial court record shall be returned to the concerned court, and certified copies filed by the appellant shall be returned after substitution with photocopies.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Status Trumps Complainant Status in Appeals
- Practitioners must now treat victim status under Section 2(wa) CrPC as a standalone ground for appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, irrespective of whether the complainant is a private individual, NGO, or statutory body
- Municipal corporations, food safety authorities, and environmental regulators initiating private complaints under penal statutes may now directly appeal acquittals without seeking special leave
Proviso to Section 413 BNSS Is an Independent Remedy
- The proviso to Section 413 BNSS is not a substitute for Section 419 BNSS but a parallel remedy
- A victim may choose to file under Section 419 BNSS (with special leave) OR under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (without special leave)
- This creates a dual-track appellate system for victims in private complaint cases
Limitation Is Not a Bar if Appeal Is Filed Within Four Months
- The Court’s grant of four months from the date of judgment to file an appeal operates as a de facto extension for victims who were unaware of their rights
- Practitioners should file appeals under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS within this window to avoid limitation challenges
- Any pending limitation issues must be adjudicated by the Appellate Court, not the High Court
