CRM-A-24-2024 (O&M) 1 240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-24-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.09.2025 M/s Singla Beverages ...Applicant Versus M/s Singla Water Sales Agency and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the applicant. *** AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J. (ORAL) CRM-1234-2024 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 387 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 387 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CRM-1235-2024 By virtue of the present application, applicant prays for placing on record additional evidence as Annexure A-1. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CRM-A-24-2024 1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in a case stemming from complaint dated 04.10.2019 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-24-2024 (O&M) 2 Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’). 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the concerned learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-24-2024 (O&M) 3 learned Sessions Judge, concerned. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 04.09.2025 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document