1 2025:CGHC:53380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 79 of 2025 • Shyamlal Sahu, S/o Vishwanath Sahu, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Gangauti (Shivpur), Out Post Basdei, Police Station Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1. Badduram Yadav, S/o Dheeram Ram Yadav, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Gangauti (Shivpur), Out Post Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Accused Person). 2. Suresh Yadav, S/o Dheeram Ram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Gangauti (Shivpur), Out Post Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Accused Person). 3. Kaushal Yadav, S/o Baddu Ram Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Gangauti (Shivpur), Out Post Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Accused Person). 4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.4 : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. This acquittal appeal U/s 413 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No.478/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Badduram Yadav & Others), whereby the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3, who have committed the offences punishable under Section 341, 294, 506 (Part-II), 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Versus. 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. 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 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