Karnataka HC Transfers NI Act Acquittal Appeal to Sessions Court, Recognises Complainant’s Right as ‘Victim’ Under BNSS

Mohammed Khaleel S/O Late Baiju Saheb Vs Rukiya W/O. Late Mohammad Khaleel (Karnataka High Court)

The Karnataka High Court disposed of an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 19 August 2014 passed by the JMFC, V Court, Mangalore in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The High Court examined the effect of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1320. The Supreme Court had clarified that after insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from 31 December 2009, a victim of an offence has a statutory right to file an appeal against acquittal irrespective of whether such victim is also the complainant. The Supreme Court further held that even if the victim is the complainant, the appeal can be maintained under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without resorting to Section 378(4) CrPC.

Relying upon the Supreme Court ruling, the Karnataka High Court observed that the appellant in the present case, being the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, also qualified as a victim and was therefore entitled to file an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court.

The Court noted that if the High Court itself proceeded to hear and decide the appeal, it could deprive the parties of an appellate forum otherwise available to them for further challenge. Therefore, in light of the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court, the matter was required to be transferred to the appropriate Sessions Court.

The Court also referred to several subsequent decisions from different High Courts and coordinate benches which had followed the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial. These included decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Chhattisgarh High Court, Delhi High Court, and various benches of the Karnataka High Court. The Court observed that an overall assessment of these decisions showed uniform reliance upon the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the appellate rights of victims/complainants.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the present appeal should be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to the earlier proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The Court directed the Registry to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned trial court records, to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge. The Principal District and Sessions Judge was directed to assign the matter to the appropriate appellate court having jurisdiction.

The transferee court was further directed to issue court notices to both parties and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The High Court also clarified that any pending applications, including applications for condonation of delay, would stand transferred for consideration by the Sessions Court.

Considering that the matter had remained pending for a considerable period, the High Court requested the appellate court to make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

The appellant was also granted liberty to carry out necessary amendments in the cause title and relevant statutory provisions. The High Court expressly clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the dispute and that all rights and contentions of the parties remained open for adjudication before the appellate court.

With these observations and directions, the appeal was disposed of.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 19.08.2014 passed in CC No. 228/2013 by JMFC, V Court, Mangalore, D.K. (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, has observed as under:

“10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of 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 Cr.PC.“

3. In the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is also entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum, i.e. this Court, for further challenge.

4. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815; by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03^rd July, 2025; and in the case of M/S. LATA KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v. SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 decided on 21^st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16^th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16^th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31^st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23^rd July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13^th November, 2025 and the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016 decided on 24^th November, 2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL (supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country.

5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned copies of the trial court Records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned Appellate Court having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge;

ii. The concerned transferee court is directed to issue Court notice to both the parties to appear before the concerned Court, and the concerned Court, thereafter, shall proceed with the case in accordance with law;

iii. In case there are applications pending for condonation of delay or any other pending applications, the same also be transferred to be considered by the learned Judge of transferee Court, in accordance with law;

iv. Considering the fact that the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible;

v. The appellant is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title and also the provisions thereof;

vi. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.

6. In the light of the above observation and directions, appeal stands disposed of.