1 2025:CGHC:24983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 177 of 2025 1 - Nirmal Chand Kothari S/o Umed Chand Kothari Aged About 49 Years R/o P. Santosh Kumar And Brothers, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, Police Station And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1 - Rajesh Soni S/o Janki Lal Soni Aged About 48 Years R/o Proprietor Upahar Jewelers, Manav Mandir Chauk, Rajnandgaon, Police Station And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (District Wrongly Written As Balod) ... Respondent(s)/Accused. For Appellant : Shri Anuj Pandey appears on behalf of Shri SS Baghel, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Shri Ashish Gangwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod in Criminal Case No.194/2018, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.18 13:21:57 +0530 2 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 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. Learned counsel 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 submission. 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 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 and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. 6. Registry shall also send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash