Authority: High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad
Order Date: 06/07/2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant – Madhu Enterprise (original complainant) versus Respondents – Balabhai Shah & Anr., with the State of Gujarat as a party through the Additional Public Prosecutor.
- Appeals filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the Trial Court order dated 12‑11‑2014 that acquitted the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
- Counsel: Mr. Dipan Desai (Appellant), Mr. Nirav C. Sanghavi (Respondent), Ms. Jirga Jhaveri (Additional Public Prosecutor).
- The matter was referred to the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747), which held that the complainant in a Section 138 case is the victim and may file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (or Section 413 BNSS) without needing to resort to Section 378.
- The Gujarat High Court also cited its own earlier decision in Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 12753/2019 & 12908/2019) and the Supreme Court’s pending SLP No. 12350/2024, emphasizing the need for a definitive pronouncement on the victim’s right to appeal.
Final Outcome
- Both appeals are disposed of with a directive to the Registry to transfer the appeals to the appropriate Sessions Court.
- Upon transfer, the appeals shall be treated as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS, and the Sessions Court shall issue notices to the parties.
- The Registry must forward the entire case record, including certified copies of the impugned order and all proceedings, to the Sessions Court forthwith.
- The lower appellate court is instructed to expedite disposal of the matters, given the considerable delay, but the High Court does not examine the merits at this stage.
Topics: Victim’s Right to Appeal, Section 138 NI Act