Disposed¶19

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, v. Nikunj Chandrawanshi

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jan 2026ACQA/295/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC acquittal appeal (ACQA) disposed of reserving liberty; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804; right of complainant to appeal against acquittal; S. 378(4) CrPC / s. 419(4) BNSS; S. 372 CrPC / s. 413 BNSS; Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha; acquittal under Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam ss. 19(1), 19B, 31, 48, 52; Shiv Shakti Khansari Udhyog (2012) 9 SCC 368; 60-day window; limitation not to be insisted upon; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days from 20/01/2026, and the concerned court directed not to insist on limitation if the appeal is so filed; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/documents to counsel and send the record back to the concerned court. ¶19

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, Vs Nikunj Chandrawanshi — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether, and how, this acquittal appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC should be dealt with in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) that a complainant may appeal against an acquittal to the court to which an appeal against conviction would lie, and counsel's prayer that the case be disposed of reserving liberty to avail that remedy.

¶18

Court's answer

In view of counsel's submission and the law declared in Celestium Financial, the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is filed before the concerned court within the 60-day period fixed by this Court, that court shall not insist upon limitation while deciding it and shall proceed to decide it in accordance with law.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 295 of 2023 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; judgment dated 20/01/2026). An acquittal appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC (corresponding to s. 419(4) BNSS) by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha against the acquittal dated 21.06.2023 of the respondent/accused by the JMFC, Kawardha in Criminal Case No. 1220/2017 of offences under Sections 19(1), 19B, 31, 48 and 52 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam — the acquittal having proceeded on Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udhyog, (2012) 9 SCC 368. On counsel citing M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant entitled to appeal against acquittal to the court competent to hear an appeal against conviction; liberty reserved therein under S. 372 Cr.P.C. / s. 413 BNSS), the Court disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to file a fresh appeal within 60 days, and directed that limitation shall not be insisted upon by the concerned court if the appeal is filed within that time. Registry directed to return certified copies and send the record back.

¶1

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2026.01.21 10:27:13 +0530

2026:CGHC:3358

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 295 of 2023

¶6

1 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, Through Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, DistrictKabirdham, (C.G.)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Nikunj Chandrawanshi S/o. Hansram Chandrawanshi, Aged About 45 Years Prop. Maa Mahamaya Gud Udyog, Village - Silhati, Tahsil - Bodla, Thana - Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.).

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

(The cause title is taken from CIS)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate with Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

20/01/2026

¶15

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) CrPC (corresponding to section 419(4) of BNSS)has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1220/2017, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for commission of the offence under Sections 19(1), 19B, 31, 48 and 52 of Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, in light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udhyog, (2012) 9 SCC 368 , finding that the provision of Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972 are not applicable

¶16

¶17

against the accused.

¶18

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant/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. He submits 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 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

¶19

3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from today. 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.

¶20

4. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶23

Sourabh P.

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, v. Nikunj Chandrawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha, v. Nikunj Chandrawanshi

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

Tikendra Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Kashipuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha Vs Tukaram Chandrawanshi

Dilip Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha Vs Devcharan Chandravanshi