Private complaint acquittal appeals remain governed by special leave to the High Court, not Sessions Court victim appeal.

In a private complaint case for offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant cannot use the proviso to Section 372 of the Code to file an appeal before the Sessions Court against acquittal as a "victim". The scheme of the Code, the specific appellate route in Section 378(4), and the context of the amendment to Section 372 show that complaint cases remain governed by the special procedure requiring special leave to the High Court. The definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) cannot be applied mechanically where it would displace that distinct appellate mechanism.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complainant in a case instituted on a private complaint under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can file an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, treating himself as a "victim", or whether the remedy lies only before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 and the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) of the Code were construed in the light of the scheme of the Code as a whole, the legislative history, the Statement of Objects and Reasons, and the Law Commission Reports. The right of appeal under Section 378(4) already specifically governed acquittals in complaint cases and required special leave from the High Court. Reading the proviso to Section 372 as creating an additional appeal as of right before the Sessions Court in complaint cases would defeat Section 378(4) and create inconsistent appellate forums for the same remedy. The context of the amendment showed that the term "victim" was intended to address cases instituted on police report where the injured person earlier lacked an effective appellate remedy, and not to displace the special procedure applicable to private complaints. The definition in Section 2(wa) could not be applied mechanically where the context required a different meaning.

Conclusion: The complainant in a private complaint case under Section 190(a) read with Section 200 of the Code is not entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 372 to appeal before the Sessions Court against acquittal; the proper remedy is an appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) with special leave.

---