1 2025:CGHC:55780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 60 of 2020 1 - Shahjade Ahmed S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 63 Years R/o Afroz Badi, P.S. Maudhapara, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Gulaam Martaza S/o M.W. Hasan Aged About 50 Years R/o Baijnathpara, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ACQA No. 276 of 2022 1 - Shahjade Ahmed S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 45 Years R/o Afroz Badi, Police Station Maudhapara, Tahsil And District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Vasudev Keshwani S/o Late Shri Sadhuram Kesharwani Aged About 55 Years (Presently 64 Years), Prop. Of Bharat Boot House, Balak Chowk, Nagar Palika Complex, Makai Chowk, Tah. And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/s : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate in both the cases. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.11.18 18:43:11 +0530 2 For Respondent in ACQA No.276/2022 : Mr. Tribid Bhattacharya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. Both these appeals are filed under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) by the appellant / complainant in respective cases, challenging the judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal (Complaint) Case No.38/2012 and the judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal (Complaint) Case No.8266/2011 respectively, whereby the respondent/accused in the respective cases have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”). Both the appeals were filed along with an application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgments, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2020 and 09.11.2022 respectively. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that 3 the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. He further submits that both the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would not oppose the aforesaid submission. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal, within a period of 45 days from the date of 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 stipulated period 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. 5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents of the respective cases to the counsel for the appellants after retaining xerox copy of the same. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, both the Acquittal Appeal stand disposed of. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi