R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5140 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL/620/2025 ================================================== RAILWAY AUTHORITY KAMLESHWAR SINGH, DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: TANMAY B JOSHI(9457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 21/08/2026 ORDER 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 243 days caused in preferring the Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railway), Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”). 2. This matter is required to be transferred in view of the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rendered in the case of State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House OBcer 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 R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 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. 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 R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 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/s as well as the connected appeal are disposed of as withdrawn, with a liberty to Kle appropriate appeal before the concerned Court, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Record and proceedings, if lying with this Court, be remitted back to the concerned Court forthwith. 6. While considering the delay, the period from which the present appeal is Kled, till the time this appeal is disposed of, will not be considered in the aspect of considering the delay in Kling appeal under section 372 of the Code (Section 413 of BNSS). The Appellate Court will have to take into consideration the delay of 243 days at the time when the said appeal is Kled before the concerned Sessions Court. The certiKed 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. 7. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025) ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026 time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make endeavour to dispose of the matter, if so Kled, as expeditiously as possible. 8. It is clariKed 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 24/08/2026 16:16:52