The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed a critical procedural right for victims in private complaint cases: the unqualified right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, even when the original prosecution was initiated by a private complainant. This ruling clarifies that victim status, not complainant status, is the decisive threshold for appellate access, aligning with the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a private complaint filed by the Assistant Collector/Commissioner, alleging that M/S Wearwell Tyres and Tubes (P) Ltd. and others had evaded excise duties under Sections 9 and 9(A)(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The trial court, after hearing evidence, acquitted the accused on grounds of insufficient proof. The complainant, who also functioned as the victim under the statutory framework, sought to challenge this acquittal.
Procedural History
- 1997: Private complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara
- 19 October 2015: Trial court acquitted the accused
- 2016: Petition filed in the High Court under Section 413 BNSS (formerly Section 372 CrPC) seeking leave to appeal the acquittal
- 2025: Supreme Court delivered Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, clarifying victim rights under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal against the acquittal, arguing that as a victim entitled to recover unpaid duties, he was entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 413 BNSS without needing special leave under Section 419(4) BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a victim who initiated a private complaint under the Central Excise Act, 1944, can appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, or whether such an appeal is restricted to the State under Section 419(4) BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, arguing that Section 2(wa) of the CrPC (now BNSS) defines a victim as any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the offence, irrespective of whether they are the complainant. He contended that the proviso to Section 413 BNSS was inserted to empower victims with an independent right of appeal, and that the State’s exclusive control under Section 419(4) was never intended to override this statutory right.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the original prosecution was initiated by a private complainant, and therefore, the appeal must follow the procedure under Section 419(4) BNSS, which requires special leave from the High Court. They contended that allowing direct appeals by victims would undermine prosecutorial discretion and create multiplicity of proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Section 413 BNSS, emphasizing that the proviso was introduced to rectify the historical exclusion of victims from appellate rights. It noted that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial had already resolved this issue in the context of Section 138 NI Act, holding that the victim’s right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is independent of their status as complainant.
"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 applied this reasoning by analogy to the Central Excise Act, noting that Sections 9 and 9(A)(A) are penal provisions creating a statutory offence, and the Assistant Collector, as the revenue authority directly affected by the evasion, qualifies as a victim under Section 2(wa) BNSS. The Court rejected the argument that private complaints are inherently different from State prosecutions, stating that the victim’s right is statutory and not contingent on the mode of initiation.
The Court further clarified that Section 419(4) BNSS applies only when the State seeks to appeal, and does not bar a victim from invoking Section 413 BNSS. The two provisions operate in parallel, not in exclusion.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that a victim under Section 2(wa) BNSS has an independent right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, irrespective of whether the case was instituted by private complaint. The victim was granted liberty to file an appeal within four months, with limitation issues to be decided by the appellate court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Status Trumps Complainant Status
- Practitioners must now treat Section 2(wa) BNSS as the primary determinant of appellate standing, not the identity of the complainant
- Even if a government authority files a private complaint, it retains victim rights under Section 413 BNSS
- No need to seek special leave under Section 419(4) BNSS if appealing as a victim
Procedural Clarity in Revenue and Regulatory Cases
- This ruling extends beyond excise to other regulatory offences under statutes like GST, SEBI, and EPF where victims (e.g., regulatory bodies) suffer pecuniary loss
- Prosecutors and defence counsel must now assess whether the complainant qualifies as a victim under Section 2(wa) before opposing an appeal
- Courts must now treat appeals under Section 413 BNSS as substantive rights, not procedural anomalies
Limitation Is Not a Bar if Condoned or Timely Filed
- The Court explicitly barred respondents from raising limitation objections if the appeal is filed within four months of this order
- Practitioners should file appeals promptly and seek condonation early if delay exists
- The ruling creates a safe harbor for victims who acted in good faith but missed deadlines
