Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 28/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No.: R/Criminal Appeal (against acquittal) No. 175 of 2015.
  • Parties: Appellant – Saurashtra Cement Ltd; Respondents – State of Gujarat & Others.
  • Counsel for appellant: Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, Mr. Aayush Bhandari, Ms. Dilbur Contractor, Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval.
  • Counsel for respondents: Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, Mr. Vinod M. Gamara, Mr. Harmish K. Shah, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt (Additional Public Prosecutor), Mr. Shivang A. Thacker, Mr. Viral K. Shah.
  • The appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar, which acquitted the accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • The appellant contends that the impugned order predates the amendment and relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747), which holds that the original complainant is the victim and may file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (or Section 413 BNSS) before the Sessions Court.
  • The Court also references its own earlier decisions: Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 12753 of 2019 & 12908 of 2019) and Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram Vs. State of Gujarat (2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569).
  • Counsel for respondents suggested remanding the matter to the Sessions Court.
  • The Additional Public Prosecutor highlighted that the Celestium Financial matter is pending before the Supreme Court in Everest Automobiles Vs. Ranjit Enterprises (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 12350/2024), urging the Court to await the final pronouncement due to its far‑reaching consequences.
  • The Supreme Court’s observations (paras 7.8, 7.9, 7.12) were quoted in detail, emphasizing that a complainant under Section 138 is the victim, possesses an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372, and that this right is on par with an accused’s right under Section 374.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court, after considering the submissions and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, orders the transfer of the appeal to the concerned Sessions Court.
  • The appeal shall be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS and numbered accordingly.
  • The Registry is directed to transfer 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 issue notice to the parties and to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
  • The High Court expressly states that it has not examined the merits of the case at this stage.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Cheque Dishonour