Subhash Chand versus Anil Sharma & Another Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 07.11.2025 Present: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma & Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocates, for the appellant/applicant. Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Ms.Ranjna Patial, and Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2. Cr. MP (M) No. 1676 of 2025 Applicant Subhash Chand has preferred the accompanying appeal, against the judgment, dated 22.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.10/10 of 2023, titled as Anil Sharma versus Subhash Chand. 2. By way of judgment dated 22.08.2024, the appeal preferred by non-applicant Anil Sharma, has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the accompanying appeal, may be summed up as under:- 3.1. Complainant Subhash Chand has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against non-applicant Anil Sharma, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), bearing Case No.141/3 of 2021/19, titled as Subhash Chand versus Anil Sharma. 3.2. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.02.2023, and order of sentence dated 15.02.2023, has convicted snon-applicant Anil Sharma, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 3.3. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, non-applicant Anil Sharma, has preferred an appeal, before the learned Appellate Court, bearing Criminal Appeal No.10/10 of 2023, titled as Anil Sharma versus Subhash Chand, which was decided on 22.08.2024 and the non-applicant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3.4. As per the record, against the said judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the applicant has preferred the criminal revision before this Court, bearing Criminal Revision No.100 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2025, by passing the following orders:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that due to technical defect, he wants to withdraw the present petition, with the liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings, before this Court. Permission granted. 2. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 4. Since, there is delay in preferring the appeal, as such, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 5. As per the report of the Registry, there is delay of about 314 days in preferring the appeal. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that inadvertently, instead of preferring the appeal against the judgment of acquittal before this Court, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision, which, later on, has been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. 6. Complaint of the applicant has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and in the reply filed by the non-applicant, nothing has been mentioned to show about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve, in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicant has preferred the revision petition, before this Court, which was, later on, dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty has also been granted to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings. 8. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of the technicalities. Keeping in view the low legal literacy in the Indian Masses, the applicant is able to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court. 9. Moreover, the applicant is not going to achieve anything by not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the application under consideration is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. 10. The application stands disposed of. Cr.MPST No.5900/2025 11. By way of the present application, the applicant, who is complainant, in this case, has sought the indulgence of this Court to grant leave to appeal. 12. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1868-1870 of 2025, titled as Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran & Others, there is no legal requirement, for the applicant, to seek special leave to appeal. As such, the application is disposed of accordingly. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 13. Be registered. 14. Admit. 15. Respondent No.1-Anil Sharma, through his counsel, is directed to furnish the personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, within four weeks, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, by giving solemn undertaking that he will surrender before this Court or before the learned trial Court, in case of ultimate acceptance of the present appeal and shall not leave the country, without permission of the Court. (Virender Singh) Judge November 07, 2025 (ps)