Andhra Pradesh HC: Complainants Can Appeal Acquittals Under Section 138 NI Act Directly As Victims

Empowering complainants in cheque bounce cases, the High Court has ruled that a person whose cheque has been dishonored is a 'victim' entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal without seeking special leave. This decision shifts the jurisdictional landscape, requiring such appeals to be heard by Sessions Courts rather than High Courts, even for complaints initiated privately.

The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sunitha Gandham adjudicated upon this criminal appeal, which challenged a trial court's acquittal of an accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Court examined the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in light of recent judicial pronouncements regarding the rights of victims in private complaint cases.

Key Takeaways

Broadened Definition of Victim

Complainants in Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 proceedings are now explicitly recognized as 'victims' under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, granting them inherent appellate rights.

No Special Leave Required

Victims appealing against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 413 of BNSS) do not need to seek 'special leave' from the High Court, unlike traditional complainant-led appeals under Section 378(4).

Retrospective Application of Law

Judicial interpretations by Constitutional Courts are deemed retrospective unless expressly stated otherwise, affecting all pending litigations where jurisdiction was previously understood differently.

Jurisdictional Shift to Sessions Courts

Appeals against acquittals in cheque bounce cases must now be directed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court rather than the High Court, leading to the transfer of existing records.

Court's Rationale on Victim Status and Appellate Jurisdiction

The Court observed that the issue of whether a complainant in a private case can be treated as a victim is no longer a matter of debate. Relying on the precedent in Celestium Financial v. A.Gnanasekaran, the Court noted that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is a penal provision by a deeming fiction, and the person entitled to the proceeds of the dishonoured cheque fits the definition of a victim. Consequently, the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is available to such individuals.

Justice Gandham further clarified the retrospective nature of this legal interpretation by citing Kanishk Sinha vs. The State of West Bengal ( "2025 INSC 278": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 179) and Government of India & another v. Sri Devraj URS Medical College ( "2026 LiveLaw (SC) 766": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 749). The Court emphasized that unless a judgment specifically states it operates prospectively, it applies to all existing matters. Since the High Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the acquittal appeal, it ordered the transfer of the case to the appropriate Sessions Court.

The Court has following directions:

"The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal record to the jurisdictional sessions Court. It is needless to say that the learned counsel for the appellant shall have liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisos thereof and file neat copy of appeal."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim... 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."

Ratio

A complainant in a case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, qualifies as a 'victim' within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such a victim possesses a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, and this right exists independently of the requirement to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code.

Background

The matter originated from a complaint filed by P. Venkateswarlu (the appellant) against S. Lavanya Murthy (Respondent No. 1) after a cheque for insufficient funds was returned. The trial was conducted by the Special Magistrate Cum VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, who, by a judgment dated October 13, 2016, acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant approached the High Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal, legal interpretations regarding the forum for such appeals evolved. The respondent argued that the complainant must be treated as a victim, and under the proviso to Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appeal should lie before the Sessions Court. The High Court, agreeing with the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, disposed of the appeal for statistical purposes while ensuring the matter reached the correct legal forum for adjudication on merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 53/2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:47863
Case Title: P. Venkateswarlu v. S. Lavanya Murthy and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): T Janardhan Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): S Varadarajulu Chetty, Advocate; Public Prosecutor (AP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19904