R/CR.MA/16751/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 16751 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL/24446/2025 ================================================== THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT DIVISION, KADI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 AMAL PARESH DAVE(8961) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4 MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4 MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 11/08/2026 ORDER 1. This application is 6led under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code or CrPC”) / Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) by the applicant - complainant seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused for the oHences under Sections 468, 120B etc of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 2. This matter is required to be transferred in view of the decision R/CR.MA/16751/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rendered in the case of State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House OJcer Vs. Mohanlal Bagde, reported in [2019] SCC OnLine Chh 102 wherein, the Court has referred the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of of Subhash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration), reported in (2013) 2 SCC 17, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held in para-18 as under : “18. If we analyse Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that the State Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to #le an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non- bailable o*ence because of the categorical bar created by Section 378(1)(b). Such appeals, that is appeals against orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable o*ence can only be #led in the Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed by the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words "in any case" but leaves out orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable o*ence from the control of the State Government. Therefore, in all other cases where orders of acquittal are passed appeals can be #led by the Public Prosecutor as directed by the State Government to the High Court." 3. It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana rendered in case of Mohanlal Vs. Gaurav Kumar and Anr., reported in 2025 PHHC 162308, wherein the Court has observed and held in para-3 as under : “3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to #le an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions.” 4. In the decision in case of M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs. M/s. R/CR.MA/16751/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 Rajit Enterprises dated 12.02.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal No.12350 of 2024 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the recent judgment of this Court in “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran1”. By way of the said judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that a complainant in a case arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a ‘victim’ who would be entitled to #le an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was further held that such appeal could be #led against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code without seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code. However, this judgment did not take into account the earlier decisions of this Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P. and Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), which have a bearing on both the aspects that were considered in the aforestated judgment, as they held to the contrary.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled principles, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission as prayed for is granted. The present application as well as the connected appeal are disposed of as withdrawn, with a liberty to 6le appropriate appeal before the concerned Court, within a period of four months from the date of this order. Record and proceedings, if lying with this Court, be remitted back to the concerned Court forthwith. 6. It is clari6ed that the period that may be consumed in 6ling the present appeal may not be counted as delay in 6ling such appeal before the concerned Court. Moreover, the certi6ed copy of the impugned judgment, be handed over to the applicant/appellant, as per Rules, if asked for. It is open for the parties to agitate all the grievance before the concerned Court afresh. R/CR.MA/16751/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 7. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make endeavour to dispose of the matter, if so 6led, as expeditiously as possible. 8. It is clari6ed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter at this stage. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/08/2026 17:46:11