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.
- U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.
- Section 138 of N.I.Act
- Section 413 of BNSS, 2023

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
The appellant, also the complainant‑victim, seeks to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. following a judgment acquitting the accused under Section 138 NI Act. The trial court had acquitted the accused, prompting the complainant to invoke the Apex Court’s decision in *M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran*. The High Court agrees that the complainant can prefer the appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372, analogous to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, the registry is directed to return the original bundle with a condonation petition, allowing the appellant four weeks to file the appeal in the Sessions Court. The appeal is thus 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