Complainants Can File Acquittal Appeals Under Section 372 CrPC Proviso: Andhra Pradesh HC

In a decisive clarification on appellate jurisdictions in cheque bounce cases, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 proceeding qualifies as a 'victim' entitled to file an appeal against acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This holding mandates the transfer of such appeals from the High Court to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, significantly altering the procedural pathway for litigants seeking to challenge trial court acquittals.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Sunitha Gandham adjudicated the matter, addressing the maintainability of a criminal appeal filed by a complainant against an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate. The court navigated the intersection of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the BNSS to determine the appropriate forum for such challenges.

Key Takeaways

Complainant as Victim

Complainants under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are now formally recognized as 'victims' for the purpose of appellate rights, removing the necessity of seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court.

Retroactive Application of Precedents

Judicial interpretations by Constitutional Courts are deemed retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise, meaning recent Supreme Court rulings on appellate rights apply to pending cases regardless of when they were filed.

Sessions Court Jurisdiction

Appeals against acquittals in private complaint cases under Section 138 must be heard by the jurisdictional Sessions Court rather than the High Court, leading to a redistribution of the appellate caseload.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court observed that the legal landscape regarding the rights of a victim in a private complaint case has been settled by the Apex Court. It emphasized that the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 was intended to give full effect to the rights of victims to challenge orders of acquittal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the circumstances, we find that 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. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all."

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."

Ratio

A complainant in a case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 falls within the definition of a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Consequently, such a person has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without the requirement of seeking special leave from the High Court, and such an appeal lies before the Sessions Court.

Background

The dispute originated when a cheque issued by the respondent was returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The appellant subsequently filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, through its judgment dated 13.06.2018, acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the High Court. The Court relied on the precedent in Celestium Financial v. A.Gnanasekaran, which established the victim's right to appeal under Section 372. Furthermore, the court addressed the timing of these principles 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), affirming that decisions of the Supreme Court are retrospective in application unless specified otherwise. Consequently, the High Court determined it lacked jurisdiction and ordered the transfer of the case records to the appropriate Sessions Court.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2190 OF 2018
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:44769
Case Title: Shaik Jakir Hussain @ Taju V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (AP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17839