1 2025:CGHC:40539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2267 of 2023 Tikaram Sahu S/o Late Shri Dhanaram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Pahanda, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O), PS- Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Bishwas, holding the brief of Mr. Yuvraj Singh Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Office has submitted its report dated 01.07.2025. I have perused the same. 2. From perusal of the order dated 27.07.2023, it is evident that the application preferred by the present appellant under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of pardon, has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005), Durg. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005, for setting aside the said order. 4. Section 16 of the Act provides as under: “(1) An appeal against the order passed by the Special Court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days from the date of order. (2) No appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of seventy- five percent deposit of liability with the competent authority.” 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2023, it is clear that the same is an order passed in the course of trial rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 307 of Cr.P.C. It is not an order determining the liability or otherwise of the appellant as contemplated under Section 16(1) of the 2005 Act. Furthermore, in terms of the statutory requirement under Section 16(2) of the 2005 Act, no satisfactory proof of seventy-five percent deposit of the liability with the competent authority has been filed along with this appeal. 6. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil