Disposed¶26

C.g. Environment Conservation Board v. Shri P.k. Agrawal and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Oct 2025CRMP/846/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal against acquittal; complainant as victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. / Section 2(y) BNSS; reliance on Celestium Financial 2025 INSC 804; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 413 BNSS; limitation not to be insisted; acquittal under Section 44 Water Act 1974, Section 37 Air Act 1981, Section 15 EP Act 1986; Korba; CRMP 846/2014; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Radhakishan Agrawal J.; 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the petitioner/complainant to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 07.07.2014 before the competent Court within 60 days of receipt of the order copy, with a direction that limitation not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that time. ¶26

C.g. Environment Conservation Board Vs Shri… — Environment and Pollution | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal dated 07.07.2014 before the competent Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2014 before the concerned Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time prescribed by this Court, limitation shall not be insisted upon and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶23

Key takeaways

Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same.ratio¶24
The record of the case is to be sent back to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class forthwith.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — CRMP No. 846 of 2014 (decided 16.10.2025, Radhakishan Agrawal, J.). Petition under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant (C.G. Environment Conservation Board) against acquittal dated 07.07.2014 by the JMFC, Katghora in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2012 of charges under Section 44 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974, Section 37 of the Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Counsel relied on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant as 'victim'; liberty to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 BNSS); respondents did not oppose. The Court permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment within 60 days of receipt of the order copy, clarifying that limitation would not be insisted upon if the appeal was filed within that time; Registry directed to return the certified copy after retaining an attested photocopy and the record to be returned to the concerned JMFC. Appeal disposed of.

¶1

¶2

Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.10.17
10:53:27
+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:51678

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 846 of 2014

¶7

1 - C.G. Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer, C.G. Environment Conservation Board, Regional Office, Near Tah. Office , Rampur, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Shri P.K. Agrawal S/o The Then Chief General Manager, Balgi Under Ground Coal Mines, Secl Korba Area Distt. Korba, Present Address Shri P.K. Agrawal O.S.D. Production Secl Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Chief General Manager, Secl Korba Area, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba C.G. Balgi Under Ground Coal Mines, Secl Tah. Kathgora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr.
		Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

16.10.2025

¶17

1. This is petition filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District: Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2012 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges under Section 44 of Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974, under Section 37 of Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and under Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the petitioner qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. , reported in 2025 INSC 804 , has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner in the present matter may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the question of limitation may not be a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits.

¶19

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the

¶20

¶21

submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶23

5. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2014 before the concerned Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

7. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned J.M.F.C. forthwith.

¶26

8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

( Radhakishan Agrawal )

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Saurabh

C.g. Environment Conservation Board v. Shri P.k. Agrawal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.g. Environment Conservation Board v. Shri P.k. Agrawal and Anr.

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

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

B.M. Distributors Vs M/S Govind Medical Agency

Prakash Chand Nishad Vs Pitamaber and Ors.

Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited secl and Anr.

Ishwari Bai Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Chandrakar Vs Kamlesh Verma