Disposed

Mantu Ghosh v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Aug 2025I.A.(Crl.)/817/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed an application for condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal under BNSS Section 419(4) against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the complainant is a 'victim' with a right to appeal. The court disposed of the applications, granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS instead.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer appeal under Section 413 BNSS.

Mantu Ghosh Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010161872025

2025:GAU-AS:10174

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/817/2025

¶6

MANTU GHOSH

¶7

S/O. ADHIR CHANDRA GHOSH, R/O. C.R. DAS ROAD, WARD NO. VII, P/O. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.

¶10

2:BABLU NUNIA S/O. CHANDRA DEEP NUNIA R/O. R.K MISSION ROAD WARD NO. XVI P/O. BIDYAPARA P/S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783324

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MS L DAS

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/816/2025

¶14

MANTU GHOSH S/O. ADHIR CHANDRA GHOSH R/O. C.R. DAS ROAD WARD NO.VII P/O. AND DIST. DHUBRI

Page No.# 2/4

ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP ASSAM 2:BABLU NUNIA S/O. CHANDRA DEEP NUNIA R/O. R.K MISSION ROAD WARD NO. XVI P/O. BIDYAPARA P/S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783324. -----------Advocate for : Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

04.08.2025

¶22

Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1-respondent, State of Assam.

¶23

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 112 days, which period of delay is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 419[4], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023.

¶24

The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal under the afore-quoted provisions of Section 419[4], BNSS, 2023 against a Judgment dated

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

20.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case no. 208/2017.

¶27

The applicant as the complainant instituted the proceedings of C.R. Case no. 208/2017 by filing a complaint alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument [N.I.] Act against the opposite party-respondent herein. The Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri [‘the Trial Court’, for short] after the trial, has acquitted the opposite party-respondent from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶28

In a recent decision in Celestium Financial vs. A Gnanasekaran Etc, 2025 INSC 804, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has framed the following questions :-

¶29

2.1. The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, ‘Cr.PC’] against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, ‘the Act’], by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2 [wa] of the Cr.PC.

¶30

Answering the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 10 of the said judgment has held that the victim of offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section [4] of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶31

The provisions of Section 413 and Section 419[4] of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’] are pari-materia to the provisions of Section 372 and Section 378[4] of the CrPC.

¶32

Therefore, the applicant herein has the option of preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS.

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant will opt for preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS.

¶35

In view of the proposition of law laid down in the afore-stated manner and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the interlocutory applications and connected appeal are disposed of, reserving the liberty to the applicant to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate forum.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Mantu Ghosh v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Ghosh v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saidul Islam Alias Chaidul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kangkan Patgiri Vs the State of Assam

Binod Soren Vs the State of Assam

Bhargab Kaushik Vs Dilip Kumar Bhagabati

Chenai Changmai Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Niki @ Roki Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.