1 2025:CGHC:61517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.369 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus K.R. Mishra, aged about 46 years, S/o R.N. Mishra, R/o Village Durgaon Kala, Police Station Mohangarh, District – Teekamgarh, M.P., at present addressed Lal Bagh H/No.329, Rajnandgaon, Sub- Engineer, P.H.E. – Dept. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 17/12/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.1028/2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 409 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that although the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 409 of IPC, but such offence is cognizable and non-bailable, therefore, she prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file the same before the concerned Sessions Judge. She placed reliance on the order dated PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.17 15:09:51 +0530 1 25.09.2019 passed in CrMP No.2107/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mohanlal Bagde) by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not object the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of order dated 25.09.2019 as referred herein above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting her liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2004 before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such appeal is filed before the concerned Session Judge within the time prescribed 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. 6. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 7. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash