1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 324 of 2024 Ravindar Singh Bedi S/o Late Pritam Singh Bedi, Aged About 62 Years R/o - 31/143, New Shanti Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Raju Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Transformer Godri, Plastic Devpuri, Police Station Tikarapara, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : ….. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20.11.2025 1. This acquittal appeal u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 2274/2019 whereby, respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 wherein it has been held that the complainant in a complaint filed 2 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”) and thus the said complainant can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS, the instant case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy of appeal. 3. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the law laid down in case of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file the appeal within a period of 60 days from today before the appropriate Court. It is made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the stipulated time, the Court hearing the appeal shall 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao