1 2025:CGHC:51678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 846 of 2014 1 - C.G. Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer, C.G. Environment Conservation Board, Regional Office, Near Tah. Office , Rampur, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri P.K. Agrawal S/o The Then Chief General Manager, Balgi Under Ground Coal Mines, Secl Korba Area Distt. Korba, Present Address Shri P.K. Agrawal O.S.D. Production Secl Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Chief General Manager, Secl Korba Area, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba C.G. Balgi Under Ground Coal Mines, Secl Tah. Kathgora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.10.17 10:53:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 16.10.2025 1. This is petition filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District: Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2012 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges under Section 44 of Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974, under Section 37 of Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and under Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the petitioner qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner in the present matter may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the question of limitation may not be a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the 3 submission made by 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 judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2014 before the concerned Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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 J.M.F.C. forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh