1 2025:CGHC:25460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 167 of 2025 1 - M/s Shree Agro Tech Through Partner, R.N. Mishra, Age-59 Years, S/o Late R.S. Mishra Address- Kh 98/40, Behind Happy Dhaba, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant/complainant. versus 1 - Shri Lakhan Kumar Netam S/o Shri Arjun Netam Aged About 33 Years Address- Village- Lainkasha (Urghe) Post- Bharri Tola And Tahsil- Daundi, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)/accused. For Appellant : Shri RN Mishra, Appellant-in-person. For Respondent(s) : Shri KK Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 18/06/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No.142/2019 whereby, complaint case was dismissed and respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, appellant-in-person submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that the victim shall AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.18 16:54:14 +0530 2 have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed 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. He submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would not oppose the aforesaid prayer and submits that he has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent today itself. 4. 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-in- person to file an appeal within a period of 30 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. 5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order, if any, and relevant documents to appellant-in- person after retaining the photocopy of the same. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka/Avinash