1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 99 of 2024 Rahul Singh S/o Santosh Singh Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Ward No. 13 Tulsaghat, Lormi Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Appellant versus Sandeep Kumar Nishad S/o Mahesh Kumar Nishad Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Nuniyakachhar, P.S City Kotwali, Mungeli, District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/09/2025 1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 213/2021 whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.09.02 11:48:43 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining photocopy of the same. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham