KIRITKUMAR KANTILAL VORAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/16123/2024                            ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 16123
                            of 2024
                In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL/1655/2026
                             With
              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1655 of 2026
==========================================================
                          KIRITKUMAR KANTILAL VORA
                                    Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 17/07/2026

                                ORAL ORDER


ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION


        Heard Mr. Sikander Saiyed, learned counsel for the applicant
and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State of Gujarat.


        Considering the submissions and the averments made in the
application, leave to appeal is granted. The application stands
disposed of accordingly.




ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL


1.      The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original
complainant under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973


                                   Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.MA/16123/2024                                ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) / under Section 419 of
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘BNSS’ for short) against the judgment and order dated 11.06.2024
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court), whereby the learned
trial Court had acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’ for short).


2.      Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.


3.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State of
Gujarat and learned counsel for the respondent/s - accused have
submitted that this matter is required to be transferred in view of the
recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Celestium Financial Vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025
(3) GLH 747 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
original complainant to be considered as a victim of the offence under
Section 138 of the Act and, therefore, the complainant has right to file
an appeal under Section 372 of the Code before the lower Appellate
Court i.e. immediate Sessions Court before the District and the
judgment dated 22.12.2025 rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No.12753 of 2019 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 12908 of 2019.


4.      Before entering into the merits of this case, this Court deems it
proper to refer to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of
Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat being Criminal
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 12753 of 2019 with 12908 of 2019 and
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium
Financial Vs. A. Gyanasekaran (supra) wherein the Hon’ble


                                 Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/16123/2024                             ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




Supreme Court has observed and held that the complainant, in a
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, considered to be a victim,
has a specific right to file an appeal against the order of acquittal
under Section 372 of the Code / Section 413 of the BNSS to the Court
which is immediately superior in hierarchy i.e. the Sessions Court.


5.      In view of the above, learned counsel for respondent - accused
submits that let the matter be remanded back to the concerned
Sessions Court.


6.      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
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. Therefore, the matter is to be decided
subject to the final outcome of the reference Court.


7.      In the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gyanasekaran
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras –
7.8, 7.9 and 7.12 as under:-

         “7.8 In the case of an offence alleged against an accused
         under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the
         complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged
         dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the
         complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372
         of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he
         need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the
         CrPC.

         7.9 In this context, we wish to state that the proviso to
         Section 372 does not make a distinction between an


                                  Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/16123/2024                                ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




    accused who is charged of an offence under the penal law
    or a person who is deemed to have committed an offence
    under Section 138 of the Act. Symmetrical to a victim of an
    offence, a victim of a deemed offence under Section 138 of
    the Act also has the right to prefer an appeal against any
    order passed by the court acquitting the accused or
    convicting for a lesser offence or imposing an inadequate
    compensation. When viewed from the perspective of an
    offence under any penal law or a deemed offence under
    Section 138 of the Act, the right to file an appeal is not
    circumscribed by any condition as such, so long as the
    appeal can be premised in accordance with proviso to
    Section 372 which is the right to file an appeal by a victim,
    provided the circumstances which enable such a victim to
    file an appeal are met. The complainant under Section 138
    is the victim who must also have the right to prefer an
    appeal under the said provision. Merely because the
    proceeding under Section 138 of the Act commences with
    the filing of a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC by a
    complainant, he does not cease to be a victim inasmuch as
    it is only a victim of a dishonour of cheque who can file a
    complaint. Thus, under Section 138 of the Act both the
    complainant as well as the victim are one and the same
    person.

    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.



                              Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.MA/16123/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




         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 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.”


8.      In view of the said submissions and the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A.
Gyanasekaran (supra) and decision of this Court in the case of
Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram Vs. State of Gujarat and
another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569, this appeal is
disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the appeal to


                                    Page 5 of 6
        R/CR.MA/16123/2024                                                   ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




  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,
  to the concerned lower Appellate Court, forthwith.


  9.       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)
  ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/07/2026 11:10:11




                                                  Page 6 of 6