logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1150 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 16375 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Parties : Chilamakuri Narayana Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----------
Date of Judgment : 08-07-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS, 2023 - Section 413 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 372 of Cr.P.C.
- Sections 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
- Section 413 of BNSS, 2023

2. Catch Words:
- appeal
- proviso
- victim
- delay condone

3. Summary:
The petitioner‑appellant seeks to have the appeal returned so it can be filed before the appropriate Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing a recent Supreme Court decision. The trial court had acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, the complainant filed an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on the Apex Court’s view that a complainant who is also a victim may prefer such an appeal. The court agreed, directing the registry to return the bundle with the delay‑condone petition, allowing the appellant to file the appeal within four weeks before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the appeal is returned for further proceedings.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for the petitioner/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 Sections 372 of 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).

2. This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 26.08.2025 rendered in C.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gannavaram.

3. The learned trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, acquitted the accused U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the complainant preferred the appeal before this Court under Sections 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

4. 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 Cr.P.C., in the case of dishonoured cheque also”.

5. Undisputedly, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant, who is also a victim in a complaint filed for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the complainant can prefer the appeal before the concerned Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., equivalent to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023.

6. In the light of foregoing discussion, Registry is directed to return the original bundle forthwith to the appellant along with delay condone petition, to enable him to represent the appeal within 4 (four) 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 and delay condone petition in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is returned.
 
  CDJLawJournal