1. Heard Sri K.Satya Sai Kumar, 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 03.05.2024 rendered in C.C.No.877 of 2018 on the file of learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

3. The learned trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and thereby, acquitted the accused U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. 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, to enable him to represent the appeal along with application for delay condone, 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.