Andhra Pradesh HC: Victim's Right to Appeal Acquittal in NI Act Cases Transferred to Sessions Court

Complainants in Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 cases now hold the status of 'victims,' granting them the absolute right to challenge acquittals in Sessions Courts without seeking special leave from High Courts. This procedural shift, solidified by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ensures that litigants are no longer bottlenecked by High Court jurisdictional constraints for cheque bounce appeals.

In a decisive ruling, Justice Sunitha Gandham addressed the maintainability of an appeal filed by a complainant against an acquittal order under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Court deliberated on whether such an appeal should be heard by the High Court or the jurisdictional Sessions Court, especially in light of the evolving definition of a 'victim' under the criminal procedure framework.

High Court's Jurisdictional Shift and Observations

The High Court clarified that the Sessions Court is the appropriate forum for entertaining appeals against acquittal orders in cheque bounce cases. The Court emphasized that the object of legislative amendments was to empower victims of crime.

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. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim."

The Court further noted that even if the victim is a complainant, they can proceed under the proviso to Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378. The judgment underscored that decisions of the Apex Court, such as Celestium Financial v. A.Gnanasekaran, have retrospective application as per the principles laid down in 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 has the 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."

Background

The dispute originated when the appellant filed a complaint against respondent No.2 after a cheque for the discharge of a debt was returned with the endorsement 'account closed.' The trial court, vide judgment dated 04.08.2017, acquitted the respondent. At the time of the acquittal, there was ambiguity regarding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to hear such appeals, leading the complainant to approach the High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the legal landscape shifted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A.Gnanasekaran, which clarified the dual rights of a complainant-victim. The High Court, applying the retrospective nature of this precedent, determined it lacked the jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits. The appeal was subsequently disposed of for statistical purposes with a direction to transfer the records to the appropriate Sessions Court.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1171/2017
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:42956
Case Title: PUVVADA SWAMY v. THE STATE OF AP AND ANR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Koti Reddy Idamakanti
For the Respondent(s): S V S Prasada Rao, Public Prosecutor (AP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17818