1 2025:CGHC:43352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 968 of 2024 Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Branch - Chauhan State, Near By Chandra Marya Takiz Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, (C.G.), Through Senior Asso. Legal Co-Ordination, Ram Avtar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 32 Years (Complainant) ... Petitioner versus Govind Kumar Sahu S/o. Harishchandr Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No. 31, Ward No. 17, Shankar Nagar, Chhavni, Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Non-Applicant) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G) in Complaint Case No. 2780/2015 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a recent 2 decision rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel prays that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy of appeal. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao