1 2025:CGHC:35910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 170 of 2022 Budhram Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Lakholi Ward No. 35 Rajnandgaon, Thasil, Police Station And District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus Maheshwar Sinha S/o Pitamber Sinha, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Balod (Chhattisgarh) Present Add.- Tejendra Singh, 57 A, Sundar Nagar, Near Krishna Public School, Vaishali Nagar, Bhaili District Durg (C.G.) Work Place- Paal Motor South Gangotri, G.E.Road, Supela Chowk Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Jail Add:- Central Jail Durg, Thasil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Dinesh Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. 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 13/05/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.2294/2016, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.07.25 10:38:35 +0530 2 of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 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 13/05/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.2294/2016, before the 3 concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. 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