T. Davarkanath Naidu Vs Krishn Kumar Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:49888

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 808 of 2025

¶6

T. Davarkanath Naidu S/o Late Shri T.G. Naidu Aged About 60 Years R/o Shri Gurukripa Plot No. D- 9/10 Street - 24 Ashish Nagar West Risali Bhilai Police Station Nevai District - Durg (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Krishn Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Hiraram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Proprietor Krishna Engineering Works R/o Behind Santoshi Mandir Plot No. 9-13 Ispat Nagar Bhilai P.S. Supela Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) (Accused)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate appear on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07.10.2025

¶15

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, application of condonation of delay vis-avis filing of the appeal.

¶16

2. On due consideration, the same is allowed in delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶17

3. The complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under section 419(4) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 378 CrPC) seeking grant of leave

¶18

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.10.09 11:12:59 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

to appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along-with the petition shows that he seeks a direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 7428/2016 by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the complaint filed u/s section 138 of NI Act before the trial Court stood dismissed, the petition filed u/s 419(4) of BNSS can be disposed of in terms of an acquittal appeal and it is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal, because the complainant is considered victim and has statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (Section 372 CrPC).

¶22

5. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of acquittal appeal.

¶23

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 wherein it has been held that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) and the said complaint can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the

¶24

3

¶25

BNSS , therefore, the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy of appeal.

¶26

7. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Cr.M.P/Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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.

¶27

8. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same.

¶28

9. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge

¶31

Manish

T. Davarkanath Naidu v. Krishn Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Davarkanath Naidu v. Krishn Kumar Sahu

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

Mohd. Rashid Jamal Vs M/S Pragati Engineering

Anurag Agrawal Vs Leena Thakur

Sanjay Joshi Vs Ram Pratap

Randeep Singh Bhatia Vs Hitesh Raicha

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ratan Ram Rajwade

Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Vs Abha Sahu