SAVANI VINODBHAI BABUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.A/232/2022                                ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 232 of 2022

==========================================
                  SAVANI VINODBHAI BABUBHAI
                              Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR KAVAN K PATEL(11303) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHAIVAL M PATEL(9950) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                          Date : 21/07/2026

                             ORAL ORDER

1.    The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original
complainant under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for short) against the
judgment and order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court).

2.    The appellant - original complainant had filed the complainant
against the respondents-accused under Sections 193, 196, 418, 424,
465, 468, 471, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of
investigation and after considering the documents, the police found
sufficient material and filed charge-sheet in the trial Court. The trial
Court recorded the plea and as the accused pleaded not guilty to the
offence, therefore, as the offence was triable by the trial Court, the


                                 Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.A/232/2022                                ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




trial was proceeded and the impugned judgment and order was
delivered by the trial Court on 30.08.2025 acquitting the respondents-
accused from the charges levelled against them.

3.    Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

4.    This matter is required to be transferred in view of the decision
of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rendered in the case of State of
Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer Vs. Mohanlal Bagde,
reported in [2019] SCC OnLine Chh 102 wherein, the Court has
referred the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in
case of of Subhash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration), reported in
(2013) 2 SCC 17, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
and held in para-18 as under :


        “18. If we analyse Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that
        the State Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor
        to file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a
        Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non- bailable
        offence because of the categorical bar created by Section
        378(1)(b). Such appeals, that is appeals against orders of
        acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable
        and non-bailable offence can only be filed in the Sessions
        Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed
        by the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words
        "in any case" but leaves out orders of acquittal passed by a
        Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable
        offence from the control of the State Government.
        Therefore, in all other cases where orders of acquittal are
        passed appeals can be filed by the Public Prosecutor as
        directed by the State Government to the High Court."


5.    It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana rendered in case of Mohanlal Vs. Gaurav
Kumar and Anr., reported in 2025 PHHC 162308, wherein the Court
has observed and held in para-3 as under :


                                  Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.A/232/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




          “3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium
          Financial vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR
          (Criminal) 208, after considerable discussion and
          comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4)
          of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file
          an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the
          Court of Sessions.”

6.    In the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gyanasekaran (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 7.12 as
under:-

          “7.12       The reasons for the above distinction are
          not far to see and can be elaborated as follows:

          Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute
          right to prefer an appeal which cannot be
          circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the
          instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act,
          i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who
          has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a
          person who is charged of the offence, namely, the
          accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured.

          Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be
          placed on par with the right of an accused who has
          suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can
          prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC. A
          person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an
          appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not
          being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim
          of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime,
          unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal.

          Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought
          it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without
          mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by
          the victim of an offence, which expression also
          includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim
          who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against


                                   Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.A/232/2022                              ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




        an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public
        Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the
        complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of
        course such an appeal is with the leave of the court.
        However, it is not always necessary for the State or a
        complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to
        a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on
        seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court
        under Section 378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to
        what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion
        of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

        Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378
        to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal
        just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State
        filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has
        inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a
        superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an
        appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared
        to a complainant.

        Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an
        offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by
        its absence. This is because the complaint filed under
        that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as
        per Section 200 of the CrPC and Section 143 of the Act
        by an express intention incorporates the provisions of
        the CrPC in the matter of trial of such a deemed
        offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the
        complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of
        cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the
        proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of
        victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.”

7.    In the decision in case of M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs. M/s.
Rajit Enterprises dated 12.02.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal
No.12350 of 2024 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

        “Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the
        petitioner on the recent judgment of this Court in
        “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran1”. By way of
        the said judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court


                                 Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.A/232/2022                             ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




        held that a complainant in a case arising under Section
        138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a
        ‘victim’ who would be entitled to file an appeal under
        the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
        Procedure, 19732. It was further held that such appeal
        could be filed against an order of acquittal under the
        proviso to Section 372 of the Code without seeking
        special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the
        Code.

        However, this judgment did not take into account the
        earlier decisions of this Court in Satya Pal Singh vs.
        State of M.P. and Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi
        Administration), which have a bearing on both the
        aspects that were considered in the aforestated
        judgment, as they held to the contrary.”

8.    Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the
matter in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gyanasekaran (supra)
is now pending at large before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs. M/s. Ranjit Enterprises in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that it is desirable that a larger Bench gives an
authoritative pronouncement on this issue as it has far-reaching
consequences.

9.    In view of the said submissions and the decisions of different
Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, this appeal
is disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the appeal to
the concerned Sessions Court. After it is transferred to the concerned
Sessions Court, it has to be treated as an Appeal under the proviso
under Section 372 of the Code / Section 413 of BNSS and numbered
accordingly and issue notice to the parties. The Registry is directed to
transfer the entire record of the case, including the certified copies of
the order impugned and record & proceedings, if lying with this Court,



                                Page 5 of 6
         R/CR.A/232/2022                                                               ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




to the concerned lower Appellate Court, forthwith.

10.        Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable
time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make
endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is
clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter at
this stage.

                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/07/2026 18:03:44




                                                         Page 6 of 6