Disposed¶7

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. v. Devtanu Chakrawarti

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2025ACQA/33/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC ACQA disposed; withdrawal of Section 378(4) CrPC appeal against Section 138 NI Act acquittal; liberty to file fresh appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS 2023 before Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation waived; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 applied; JMFC Rajnandgaon CC No.935/2010 acquittal 27/12/2011; single bench Sanjay S. Agrawal; decision 11/08/2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of by permitting withdrawal, with liberty to file a fresh appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation not to be insisted upon; Registry directed to return certified copies/documents and remit the record to the concerned Court. ¶7

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devtanu Chakrawarti — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the pending appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), without being obstructed by limitation.

¶2

Court's answer

Following the law declared by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), this Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the present appeal and granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal dated 27/12/2011 in Criminal Case No.935/2010 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that if the fresh appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time granted, the limitation objection shall not be insisted upon and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal against acquittal (ACQA No.33 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh) disposed of by permitting withdrawal. The appellant/complainant, whose appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC lay against a JMFC Rajnandgaon acquittal dated 27/12/2011 under Section 138 NI Act in Criminal Case No.935/2010, was granted liberty to withdraw and instead prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court, 08/04/2025) on the victim's right to appeal against acquittal. Time fixed: 30 days from receipt of copy of the order; the Sessions Court was directed not to insist on limitation if the appeal is filed within that period, the respondent having conceded this point.

2025:CGHC:40272

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No.33 of 2021

¶6

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Directors Or Respectively Anil Kumar Baradiya, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Dulichand Baradiya, Sunil Baradiy Aged About 43 Years, S/o Dulichand Baradiya And Siddesh Baradiya Aged About 24 Years, S/o Nirmal Baradiya, R/o Sadar Bazaar Rajnandgaon, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Dinesh Gupta Aged About 31 Years S/o Mr. R.P. Gupta R/o Heeramoti Line Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Devtanu Chakrawarti S/o R.C. Chakrawarti R/o Avanti Vihar Colony, Near Sec.9 Temple, Occupation Tanu Lamp Industries, Shadaddi Darbar, Boriakala Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri G. I. Sharan, Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

11/08/2025

¶15

SATISH TUMANE

¶16

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.12 10:53:07 +0530

¶17

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 27/12/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.935/2010, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

3 ) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case, an appeal is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation.

¶21

4 ) 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 27/12/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

¶22

¶23

Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.935/2010, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶24

5 ) 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.

¶25

6 ) 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.

¶26

7 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶27

SD/- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶28

Tumane

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. v. Devtanu Chakrawarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. v. Devtanu Chakrawarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Chandrawanshi Vs Surendra Kumar Sahu

Rajesh Gupta Vs Mulla Akbar Ali

Harsh Chitlangia Vs Subodh Rajan @ Veerbhadra Shah

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhagirathi Sinha

Premshankar Sahu Vs Rajkumar Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs Ashish Kumar Gajendra