Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010161872025 2025:GAU-AS:10174 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/817/2025 MANTU GHOSH S/O. ADHIR CHANDRA GHOSH, R/O. C.R. DAS ROAD, WARD NO. VII, P/O. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:BABLU NUNIA S/O. CHANDRA DEEP NUNIA R/O. R.K MISSION ROAD WARD NO. XVI P/O. BIDYAPARA P/S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783324 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MS L DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/816/2025 MANTU GHOSH S/O. ADHIR CHANDRA GHOSH R/O. C.R. DAS ROAD WARD NO.VII P/O. AND DIST. DHUBRI Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP ASSAM 2:BABLU NUNIA S/O. CHANDRA DEEP NUNIA R/O. R.K MISSION ROAD WARD NO. XVI P/O. BIDYAPARA P/S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783324. ------------ Advocate for : Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1-respondent, State of Assam. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 112 days, which period of delay is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 419[4], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023. 3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal under the afore-quoted provisions of Section 419[4], BNSS, 2023 against a Judgment dated Page No.# 3/4 20.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case no. 208/2017. 4. The applicant as the complainant instituted the proceedings of C.R. Case no. 208/2017 by filing a complaint alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument [N.I.] Act against the opposite party-respondent herein. The Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri [‘the Trial Court’, for short] after the trial, has acquitted the opposite party-respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. In a recent decision in Celestium Financial vs. A Gnanasekaran Etc, 2025 INSC 804, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has framed the following questions :- 2.1. The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, ‘Cr.PC’] against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, ‘the Act’], by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2 [wa] of the Cr.PC. 6. Answering the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 10 of the said judgment has held that the victim of offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section [4] of Section 378 of the CrPC. 7. The provisions of Section 413 and Section 419[4] of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’] are pari-materia to the provisions of Section 372 and Section 378[4] of the CrPC. 8. Therefore, the applicant herein has the option of preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS. Page No.# 4/4 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant will opt for preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS. 10. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the afore-stated manner and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the interlocutory applications and connected appeal are disposed of, reserving the liberty to the applicant to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate forum. JUDGE Comparing Assistant