Victim's appeal against acquittal should ordinarily go to Sessions Court first, not directly to the High Court.

A complainant in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution is treated as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC and therefore has a statutory appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372. The High Court held that this remedy should ordinarily be pursued before the Sessions Court, and direct recourse to the High Court under Section 378(4) is not the proper course where the Sessions Court is the available appellate forum. The reasoning turned on forum hierarchy, judicial propriety, and avoiding parallel or inconsistent proceedings. The record was accordingly directed to be transferred to the appropriate Sessions court for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complainant in an appeal against acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could directly invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of first availing the victim's appellate remedy under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court of Sessions.

Analysis: The complainant in a Section 138 prosecution is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, as such, has a right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372. The judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran was understood to recognise that right, but it did not compel the complainant to bypass the statutory appellate forum ordinarily available to a victim. The Court held that permitting direct recourse to the High Court would defeat the object of Section 372, reduce one appellate forum, and create an undesirable possibility of parallel or inconsistent proceedings before the Sessions Court and the High Court. On principles of judicial propriety and forum hierarchy, the victim should first proceed before the Court of Sessions, which is the appellate court ordinarily competent to hear such an appeal.

Conclusion: The complainant was not permitted to bypass the Sessions Court, and the remedy lay in filing the appeal before the Court of Sessions under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by directing transfer of the record to the appropriate appellate court of Sessions for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a victim-complainant has a statutory appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court should ordinarily not be approached directly under Section 378(4) where the Sessions Court is the proper appellate forum.

---