Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha Vs Manoj Chandravanshi — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha Vs Manoj Chandravanshi — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to file a fresh appeal within 60 days; if filed within that period, the concerned Court will not insist on limitation and will decide it in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

How should this acquittal appeal be disposed of in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) recognising the complainant/victim's right to prefer an appeal against acquittal (cf. Section 372 Cr.P.C. / Section 413 BNSS) — i.e., adjudicate it on merits or reserve liberty to file a fresh appeal?

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days.

Key takeaways

If such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given by this Court, that Court will not insist upon limitation while deciding it and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 863 of 2024 (acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC / Section 419(4) BNSS): Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kawardha had appealed against the acquittal dated 30.07.2022 passed by the JMFC, Kawardha (Criminal Case No. 610/2018), acquitting Manoj Chandravanshi under Sections 19(1), 19-B, 31, 48 and 52 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam on the basis of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udhyog, (2012) 9 SCC 368. Relying on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant/victim's right to appeal against acquittal; Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 BNSS), the High Court (Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal), on 20/01/2026, disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days, with the clarification that limitation will not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that period; the Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and documents and to send the record back to the concerned Court.

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2026.01.21 10:27:15 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:3358

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 863 of 2024

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

versus

1 - Manoj Chandravanshi S/o Raju @ Shatruhan Chandravanshi, Aged About 40 Years, Prop Hariom Gud Udyog, Village - Lakhanpur Kalan, Tahsil - Kawardha, Thana - Pipriya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.).

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate with Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Not noticed.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

20/01/2026

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 30.07.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 610/2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for commission of the offence under Sections 19(1), 19-B, 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

2

Udhyog, (2012) 9 SCC 368 , finding that the provision of Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972 are not applicable against the accused.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Sourabh P.