AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
Heard learned counsel representing Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. He would submit that the appeal grounds may be returned, permitting the appellant to file appeal before concerned Sessions Court as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Celestium Financial Vs. A.Gnanasekaran 2025 Livelaw (SC) 666.
This appeal is preferred challenging the Judgment dated 24.09.2025 rendered in C.C.No.472 of 2024 (S.T.C.No.16707 of 2023) on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.
The learned trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, the complainant preferred the appeal before this Court under Section 419 (4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant held that “if the complainant is also a victim, they can prefer appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., in the case of dishonoured cheque also”.
Undisputedly, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant, who is also a victim in a complaint filed for the offence U/secs.138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the complainant can prefer the appeal before the concerned Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., equivalent to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023.
In the light of foregoing discussion, Registry is directed to return the original bundle forthwith to the appellant, to enable him to represent the appeal within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the concerned Sessions Court in accordance with law. On such representation, concerned Sessions Court shall proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal is returned.