Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237162025 2026:GAU-AS:13543 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.L.P./47/2025 SHESHANT SHARMA S/O OKIL SHARMA, R/O MANCOTTA ROAD NEAR OVER BRIDGE, P/O AND P/S. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SANTOSH MAHATO S/O BRAJA MAHATO R/O MANCOTTA ROAD NEAR OVER BRIDGE NEAR HIGHLAND WINE SHOP P/O P/S AND DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SENSUA, R A LAHKAR,G KAUSHIK,P KUNDU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A RAHMAN (R-2),MR. N D SARMA (R-2),MR. S NAG (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 14.09.2026 Heard Mr G Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application filed under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023, for grant of Special Leave to appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 15.07.2025, passed by the learned SDJM (S), Dibrugarh, in NI Case No. 82/2022. 3. The petitioner, herein, is the complainant as well as the victim. The learned Trial Court on conclusion of the proceeding, acquitted the accused vide Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2025, as stated above. The petitioner as appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal against the aforesaid Judgment. However, it has been by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran; reported in 2025 INSC 804, that the complainant comes within the purview of victim, which is defined under Section 2 (y) of the BNSS, 2023, wherein it is provided that victim means a person, who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the victim of an offence has a right to prefer an appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023, against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused before a Court, where ordinarily an appeal lies. 3. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to move an application before the Sessions Court, which is the appellate Court against the acquittal order passed by the Court of learned SDJM (S), Dibrugarh. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial (supra), has held as follows:- Page No.# 3/4 “9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has 50 the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. ” 5. From the above findings and conclusion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is, therefore, held that the applicant or the appellant should approach the jurisdictional Court of Sessions against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the learned SDJM (S), Dibrugarh, in NI Case No. 82/2022. It is also noticed that the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court on the bona fide assumption that the appeal lies before the present forum in view of Section 319(4) of the BNSS, 2023, and he be given the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act by the Sessions Court while dealing with the appeal. 6. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant