High Court of Gujarat
R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 2499 of 2019
August 10, 2026
Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Bipinbhai Popatlal Hingu (Appellant / Original Complainant) vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Opponent / Respondent)
"Disclaimer: This article is a simplified summary of the court judgment prepared for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official legal document. For complete facts and full context, please refer to the official judgment attached below."
- What Was the Case About: This case involves an appeal filed by the original complainant, Bipinbhai Popatlal Hingu, against a trial court order dated October 3, 2019, passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The trial court had acquitted the respondent-accused of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to a dishonored cheque. The complainant originally challenged this acquittal directly before the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Key Arguments:
- Complainant & State Position: The legal representatives submitted that under binding Supreme Court precedent (Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran), a complainant in a cheque bounce case is legally recognized as a "victim" who suffers direct financial harm from the dishonor. As a victim, the complainant possesses an absolute statutory right under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 413 of the BNSS to appeal an acquittal order directly to the immediate superior Sessions Court without needing special leave from the High Court under Section 378(4).
- Procedural Note: The prosecution pointed out that while this legal issue is currently pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court in a reference matter, prevailing judicial decisions mandate transferring such appeals to the District Sessions Court.
- What Did the Court Decide: The Gujarat High Court disposed of the appeal and ordered its Registry to transfer the complete case record to the concerned Sessions Court. The Court directed the Sessions Court to register and treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 413 of the BNSS, issue notices to the parties, and make every effort to dispose of the long-pending case as expeditiously as possible. The High Court explicitly clarified that it did not examine or express any opinion on the underlying financial merits of the case.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment provides important practical relief for everyday citizens, merchants, and small business owners who face financial losses when cheques bounce. By confirming that a person who receives a dishonored cheque is legally classified as a "victim," the ruling confirms their unconditional right to appeal a trial court's acquittal order directly to their local District Sessions Court. This removes the requirement of seeking special permission from the High Court, making the legal process faster, less expensive, and more accessible for victims seeking recovery.
Applicable Laws and Sections
- Acts Applicable:
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Key Sections:
- Section 138, NI Act: Defines the legal offense and penalties for the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds.
- Section 372, Cr.P.C. / Section 413, BNSS: Grants a victim the statutory right to appeal an acquittal or inadequate compensation directly to the immediate superior Sessions Court.
- Section 378, Cr.P.C. / Section 419, BNSS: Outlines general procedures for appealing acquittals, which previously required complainants to seek special leave from the High Court.
- Section 2(wa), Cr.P.C.: Defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by an offense, including the payee of a dishonored cheque.