1 2026:CGHC:10693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 179 of 2015 1 - Gopal Prasad Sahu S/o Vishawambhar Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation Pearless Agent, R/o Village Kutela, Thana Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - Dr. Amrit Lal Rohleder S/o Karl Roheldar Aged About 38 Years Occupation Doctor, Village Kutel, Tahsil Saraipali, Thana Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Accused) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station House Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy GA and Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 02/03/2026 Heard. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2015 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.52/14 by the Judicial Magistrate First PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.03.02 15:05:52 +0530 2 Class, Saraipali (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that although the learned trial Court has acquitted respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 420 of IPC, but such offence is cognizable and non-bailable, therefore, he prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file the same before the concerned Sessions Judge. He placed his reliance on the order dated 25.09.2019 passed in CrMP No.2107/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mohanlal Bagde) by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of order dated 25.09.2019 as referred herein above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2015 before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. It is clarified that if such appeal is filed before the concerned Session Judge within the time prescribed by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 6. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 3 7. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priyanka