1 2025:CGHC:48133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 237 of 2022 1 - Golu Kaiwartya S/o Late Son Singh Kaiwartya Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Bhulauram S/o Shri Puniram Dahariya Aged About 60 Years R/o Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramlal S/o Shri Manakram Doundiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shailesh Puria and Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) ORDER ON BOARD 18-9-2025 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth, referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred by the applicant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 11-1-2022 passed by the 3rd Upper Sessions Judge, Balodabajar, Distt. Balodabajar-Bhatapara (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2021, upholding the judgment of acquittal of respondents No. 1 and Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.19 17:40:34 +0530 2 2 from the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, Distt. Balodabajar-Bhatapara in Criminal Case No. 582/2016. 2. In a reference bearing Criminal Revision No. 643/2015 (Sunil Jangde Vs. State of CG and others), the issue to be decided by learned Division Bench of this Court was as under :- “Whether the victim is entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Sessions in a criminal appeal or whether revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. would lie against the order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Sessions in a criminal appeal ?” 3. After considering the issue, learned Division Bench answered the reference in para 18 and 19 of the order as under :- “18. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs and the judicial pronouncements referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the reference made to this Bench needs to be answered holding that against the judgment/order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Sessions in a criminal appeal it would only be an appeal which would lie to the High Court. 19. Thus, answering the reference we hold that it is only an appeal which could have been filed by the victim against the judgment of acquittal from the Court below even though passed in an appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we send the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Bench having roster for an appropriate order/direction.” 3 4. In view of above finding recorded by learned Division Bench, this revision is not maintainable. Hence, the same is disposed of as not maintainable. However, liberty is left with the applicant to file appeal within 30 days from today. In the event of filing such appeal, the issue with regard to limitation would not be insisted. 5. This criminal revision is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak