1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 70 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate District Surguja Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus Rambilas S/o Banwari Das Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Appellant-State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : Shri N.K.Malviya, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal is filed under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant- State against the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3226/12 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 294, 323 & 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the appellant-State qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment granted liberty to the petitioner therein Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.02 15:47:15 +0530 2 to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appellant-State in the present matter may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the question of limitation may not be a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has raised no objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/State. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant-State to withdraw this appeal by granting liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2016 before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Sessions Court within the time prescribed by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 6. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 7. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani