1 2025:CGHC:45925 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1111 of 2024 Mahendra Sahu S/o Late Chandrahas Sahu Aged About 58 Years Proprietor- Gudiya Construction, Resident Of Village Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Chetan S/o Kheduram Sonkar Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Panduka, Present Secretary Gram Panchayat Atarmara, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dujeswar S/o Late Mahavir Thakur Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Panduka, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 09.09.2025 1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of CrPC read with Section 419(4) of BNSS 2023 has been filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 28/2022 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has rendered the decision in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding 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 under section 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 submits 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