“As an avid follower of legal developments, I eagerly read the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s April 2025 decision in Crl.A.No: 001868-001867 of 2025 (M/S Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., decided on 08.04.2025). This judgment has completely transformed my perspective on justice”.
Issue Considered
The central issue was whether an appeal is maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against an order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Specifically, the Court examined whether the complainant in such proceedings qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
Above said Judgment para No:2 is….. whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
Held: In Para 7.12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonoured cheque, must be construed as a “victim” in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
In Para 9…, the Court clarified that such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal, including against an order of acquittal, under the proviso to Section 372 without needing special leave from the High Court, but only on the grounds specified therein. Thus, a complainant under Section 200 CrPC, who alleges an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, has the right to appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
General Remedies for Complainants in Criminal Cases:
If a complainant’s case does not succeed in a criminal court, the CrPC/BNSS
provides the following remedies:
In the case of acquittal by the trial court, the complainant may appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC/Section 419(4) BNSS, and, if necessary, further appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
For example, the progression is as follows:
1. Complaint under Section 200 CrPC/Section 223 BNSS,
2. If acquitted, appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC/Section 419(4) BNSS 3. Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution
Earlier Legal Position
In Crl.A.No: 50 of 2013 (Subash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), decided on 08.01.2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that in complaint cases, an appeal from an order of acquittal by a Magistrate lies only to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, and not to the Sessions Court. The complainant must seek special leave to appeal from the High Court.
Above Said Judgment Issue: Para: 7….. whether in a complaint case, an appeal from an order of acquittal of the Magistrate would lie to the Sessions Court under Section 378(1) (a) of the Code or to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code.
Para: 9…. law relating to appeals against orders of acquittal has evolved over the years. Counsel submitted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861 no appeal against an order of acquittal could be filed. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872 permitted only the State Government to file an appeal against acquittal order. Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 permitted only the State to file an appeal against acquittal order. In 1955 it was amended so as to permit the complainant to file an appeal against acquittal order. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 417 was substituted by Section 378.
Held: …. Para:21….. we conclude that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court.
This position was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court (Three-Judge Bench) in Crl.A.No: 89 & 90 of 2020 (K. Rajalingam v. R. Suganthalakhsmi), which held that as against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal lies only before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, with special leave required under Section 378(5) CrPC.
Above said Judgment decided based on Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash framed five issues in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2019 and placed before the Hon’ble chief justice to decide the correctness of the law laid down by full bench i.e. S.Ganapathy case.
i. When a Magistrate acquits an accused in a case instituted upon a private complaint, like a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, where does the remedy lie for the unsuccessful complainant – Whether to the Court of Session under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. or before the High Court under Section 378(4) and (5) Cr.P.C. or are there concurrent remedies available, with the right to the complainant to elect the forum of choice?
ii. If the remedy is under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., should the complainant seek special leave from the Court of Session and if so, under what provision of law?
iii. What is the period of limitation for filing an appeal against acquittal before the Court of Session under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. in a private complaint case like Section 138 of the NI Act?
iv. If the answer to Question No.i under reference is that the appeal will have to be filed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., then, if such appeal filed by the complainant before the Court of Session is dismissed and the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is upheld, does the complainant have a remedy to file a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court or file another round of appeal against such acquittal by the Court of Session before the High Court under Section 378(4) & (5) Cr.P.C.?
v. If the complainant has the revisional remedy before the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., can the High Court set aside only the Appellate Court’s order or the Trial Court’s order or the orders of both the Courts below?
Issue No.1 answered accordingly in K.Rajalingam case…..
Para: 28…..Accordingly, we answer the reference as under. 1. As against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will lie only before the High Court, under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. In such cases, the complainant has to seek for Special leave under Section 378 (5) of Cr.PC. The first question in the order of reference is answered accordingly.
(underline supplied by me)
Binding Precedent and Overlooked Decisions
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (Crl.A.No: 963 of 2010, decided on 03.05.2010) directly addressed appellate remedies in Section 138 NI Act cases. It distinguished the appellate routes for convictions and acquittals:
For convictions: Appeal to Sessions Court under Section 374(3)(a) CrPC, revision to High Court under Sections 397/401 CrPC, and then special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
For acquittals: Appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, and then special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Change Introduced by Gnanasekaran Case
The Gnanasekaran judgment marks a significant shift. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against acquittal in cheque dishonour cases (Section 138 NI Act) under the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) CrPC. The complainant, as a “victim,” can now invoke this provision, enabling a more accessible appellate remedy.
| S.No | Issue | Provision | Precedent | Legal Position | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Appeal against acquittal in section 138 NI Act | Section 378(4) of Crpc/419(4) of BNSS | Damodar S. Prabhu V Sayed Babalal.H, Subsequently followed as in binding nature three Judges of MHC K.Rajalingam V R.Suganthalakhsmi(2020) | Only to High Court, with special leave; | Sessions Court has no Jurisdictions for appeal either 138 case or other private complaint cases |
| 2 | Appeal against acquittal in Private complain cases(for instance prevention of food adulteration Act 1954) | Section 378(4) of Crpc/419(4) of BNSS | Subash chand V state (Delhi Administration) | Only to High Court, with special leave; | Sessions Court has no Jurisdictions for appeal either 138 case or other private complaint cases |
AFTER GNANASEKARAN’S PROPOSITION OF LAW IS
| S.No | Issue | Provision | Precedent | Legal position | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Appeal against acquittal in section 138 NI Act | Section 372 r/w 2(wa) of Crpc/413 r/w 2(y) of BNSS | Crl.A.No: 001868-001867 of 2025 (08.04.2025) M/s celestium financial V.A.Gnanasekaran etc | Damodar S. Prabhu (Three Judges) is binding and specifically classified the appellant route in cheque cases, but Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran did’t adequately engaged with this. | Sessions Court has Jurisdictions for appeal in cheque cases, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonor of Cheque can be invoked U/s.proviso 372 r/w 2 (wa) of Crpc/413 r/w 2(y) of BNSS |
This is the way to change “I see justice”:-
This change-from the Damodar S. Prabhu position to the Gnanasekaran case-has fundamentally altered my perspective on justice. The law now recognizes the complainant in cheque dishonour cases as a “victim” entitled to a more direct and effective appellate remedy.
Note: The position previously articulated by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in S. Ganapathy v. N. Senthilvel (2016) 4 CTC 119 has been “resurrected” by the Gnanasekaran decision.
My views expressed here are strictly personal.
Author: Rajavel @ Raju Bhai, B.A., LL.B., Advocate, Tirupattur.
