Ramgulal Sahu Vs Firoj Ahmad Khan — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Ramgulal Sahu Vs Firoj Ahmad Khan — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to the appellant/complainant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 10.02.2023 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order, with a clarification that limitation will not be insisted upon; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant and remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). +1 more

Court's answer

In the light of the submissions and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), the Court permitted the appellant/complainant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 10.02.2023 in Complaint Case No.617/2019 before the concerned Sessions Judge.

Ratio / Principle

The liberty to prefer the fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge is to be exercised within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Key takeaways

Clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given by this Court, the Sessions Court would not insist upon limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Complainant's appeal (ACQA No.120 of 2023) under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, judgment dated 10.02.2023 in Complaint Case No.617/2019). Relying on the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (judgment dated 08/04/2025) on the victim's right to appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Single Bench (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order, clarifying that the Sessions Court would not insist upon limitation and would decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law; Registry to return the certified copy and remit the record. Appeal disposed of on 06/08/2025.

1

2025:CGHC:39160

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No.120 of 2023

Ramgulal Sahu S/o Rajaram Sahu Aged About 59 Years Caste Teli, R/o Ward No. 25, Anil Printing Press Road Railway Colony, House No.89 Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant/Complainant

versus

Firoj Ahmad Khan S/o Latif Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o House No.28, Ward No.09, In Front Of D. A. V. School, Behind Of Pani Tanki, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None.

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

06/08/2025

SATISH TUMANE

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.07 10:51:42 +0530

1 ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, District Balod (CG) in Complaint Case No.617/2019, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2

2 ) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804 , right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the Court, to which, an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also, the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits.

3 ) In the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, 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 10.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajahara, District Balod (CG) in Complaint Case No.617/2019, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period

3

of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

4 ) It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge within the time given 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.

5 ) Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.

6 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

SD/- SD/--/-/-- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

Tumane