1 2026:CGHC:6444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 193 of 2026 1 - Ashish Jaiswal S/o Harish Chand Jaiswal Aged About 53 Years Director, Supretech Project And Construction Private Limited, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Gaurav Path, Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Sajal Pandey S/o Anil Kumar Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Gadhi No. 3, Tahsil- Pendra, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. Through Its General Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Jagnnath Pandey, Aged 74 Years, R/o Behind Gadhi No. 3, Tahsil- Pendra, Police Station- Pendra, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 05/02/ 2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order/judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.06 10:40:35 +0530 2 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, Civil District – Bilaspur, District - Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2024, whereby the trial Court’s order of conviction and sentence dated 24.10.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 755/2022 was set aside and the matter was remanded for pass an order afresh after providing sufficient opportunities to the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned appellate Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The learned appellate Court has given a chance to the complainant to fulfil the lacuna and to correct the mistake which was committed by the complainant. The Court are not meant for the correction of the mistakes or to fulfil the lacunae of the case of the complainant, which was committed by the complainant while contesting the case, and it is for the complainant to examine the person whose affidavit has been filed by the complainant. As such, the petition is liable to be allowed, and the order of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kooli Saseendran & ors. Vs. State of Kerala Etc., passed in 3 Criminal Appeal No. 1874-1875 of 2010 on 17.12.2019. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision including the impugned order. 4. In the case in hand, it is clear from the material available on record that the evidence of the complainant, Sajal Pandey, recorded on 10.09.2024, in the context of the affidavit dated 15.06.2022, which was filed before the trial Court by the power of attorney holder, Anil Kumar Pandey, under Section 145 of the N.I. Act, and in that context, the defence was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the said power of attorney holder, Anil Kumar Pandey. In such a situation, the judgment passed in the matter without the complainant’s examination-in-chief and without giving the defence an opportunity to cross-examine the power of attorney holder, Anil Kumar Pandey, in the context of his affidavit evidence, is not legally sound, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court on 24.10.2024 was set aside by the learned appellate Court and the matter was remanded back directing to pass a fresh judgment after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and on the basis of evidence and documents. 5. Having carefully examined the matter, I find that the facts and circumstances of the case cited by the learned counsel 4 for the applicant are different from the case in hand; therefore, the applicant is of no support to it. Further, looking to the impugned order, I find no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court; hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu