1 2025:CGHC:35914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 123 of 2023 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Comp. Ltd., Registered Under Companies Act 1956, Having It's Corporate Office At Chennai And Branch Office At Shop No. 506-509, Fifth Floor, National Corporate Park, G E Road, Raipur, C.G. Through Authorized Singnatory Shri Yadav Kamble, Aged 35 Years, S/o Shri Sarjerao Kamble, Address 506-509, National Corporate Park, G E Road, Raipur, C.G. Post Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.). ... Appellant versus Shiv Shankar Tiwari, S/o Lalit Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 37 Years, Proprietor Shri Ram Transport Service, Address Block No. 10, Parking 04, Dr. Khobchand Bagh, Transport Nagar, Ravanbhata, District Raipur, (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Swayam Tehanguria, Advoacte. For Respondent : None. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 24/07/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 30/01/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.151/2018, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.07.25 10:38:35 +0530 2 2) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 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 for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits. 3) In the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30/01/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.151/2018, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. 3 4) It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge 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 and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith. 6) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde