1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 156 of 2022 Bansi Lal (Died) Through Legal Heir Geeta Bai W/o Late Bansi Lal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village - Karhidih, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Mangla Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Dhaneshwar Kurre S/o Dwarika Prasad Kurre, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kurre Nagar, Karhidih, Police Station - Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Suresh Tandan, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Vipin Singh, Advocate appears along with Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 07/04/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in N.I.A.No.349/2019, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that the “Complainant” under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 shall have a right to prefer an appeal as a “Victim” against any order passed NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.02.10 16:45:26 +0530 2 by the Court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also, the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case an appeal is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation. 4. In the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07/04/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in N.I.A.No.349/2019, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. 5. It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge within the time given 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. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned order Annexure- A/1 and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after obtaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde