Victim appeal in cheque dishonour cases is confined to the High Court; Sessions Court remedy under Section 372 is unavailable.

In complaint prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant, even if falling within the wider definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot use the proviso to Section 372 to appeal an acquittal before the Sessions Court. The provisions of Sections 372 and 378 must be read harmoniously, and the special appellate scheme for complaint cases remains intact. Accordingly, an appeal against acquittal in such matters lies only to the High Court under Section 378(4), subject to special leave, so the proviso to Section 372 does not create a concurrent remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can, as a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenge an acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, or whether the remedy lies only in an appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code.

Analysis: The expression "victim" in Section 2(wa) is of wide amplitude, but its meaning must yield to the context where Sections 372 and 378 operate together. The scheme of Section 378, as amended, preserves the special procedure for appeals in complaint cases and continues to require special leave for appeals against acquittal in such matters. Reading the provisions harmoniously, and avoiding a construction that would create concurrent appellate remedies in complaint cases, the proviso to Section 372 was held not to extend to a complainant who is also the victim in a complaint case. The Court followed the view that the complainant in a Section 138 prosecution is excluded from the proviso to Section 372 for purposes of appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The complainant in a Section 138 case cannot appeal against acquittal to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 and must seek special leave and file the appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4).

Ratio Decidendi: In complaint cases, the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) must be construed contextually so that the proviso to Section 372 does not displace the specific appellate route under Section 378(4) for appeals against acquittal.

---