Disposed¶21

Global Developers through Its Authorized Representative Dinesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Apr 2026Acq. App.(C)/3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC acquittal appeal maintainability/forum determination; appeal against acquittal by Judicial Magistrate lies before court below itself; Section 372 CrPC; Chapter XXIX CrPC; Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (followed, para 6.1 quoted); acquittal under Section 138 NI Act 1881; Complaint Case No.1284 of 2014 (T.R No.315 of 2018), judgment dated 05.10.2018; appeal disposed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; Global Developers v. State of Jharkhand and Kdar Nath Sahu.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum and work out his remedy in accordance with law; pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of (source para 22). ¶21

Global Developers through Its Authorized Representative… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum and work out his remedy in accordance with law; pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of (source para 22).

¶21

Issue for consideration

Before which forum does an appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class lie, and can the present acquittal appeal before the High Court proceed?

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate will lie before the court below itself.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

As the judgment of acquittal in the present case was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, the appeal will lie before the court below itself.

¶20

Key takeaways

The present acquittal appeal is disposed of, giving liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum and work out his remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal (Acq. Appeal (C) No.03 of 2019) filed by Global Developers against the judgment dated 05.10.2018 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Complaint Case No.1284 of 2014 (T.R No.315 of 2018), whereby respondent No.2 (Kdar Nath Sahu) was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (para 6.1 thereof, dealing with Chapter XXIX and Section 372 CrPC, being expressly quoted), the Court held that an appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate lies before the court below itself. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum and work out his remedy in accordance with law, and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of. Single bench: Rajesh Kumar, J.; decided 20th April, 2026.

¶1

2026:JHHC:40046

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (C) No.03 of 2019

¶3

Global Developers, through its authorized representative Dinesh Mandal, aged about 44 Years, S/O late Nanak Mandal, R/o Oposite road no.4, Ashok Niketan Road, Ashok Nagar, behind Bank of India, P.O and P.S Argora, District Ranchi. …… Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Kdar Nath Sahu, S/O late Shiv Ratan Sahu, R/O Argora, P.O and P.S Argora, District Ranchi.

¶7

…... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

--------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate --------

¶10

10/Dated: 20th April, 2026

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.10.2018, passed in Complaint Case No.1284 of 2014 (T.R No.315 of 2018) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶13

3. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, will lie before the court below itself .

¶14

Paragraph No.6.1 of the said judgment is relevant which

¶15

reads as under :-

¶16

“6.1. Chapter XXIX of the CrPC deals with appeals. The said Chapter delineates the statutory framework governing appeals. Section 372 unequivocally declares that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by the CrPC itself or by any other law for the time being in force. In fact, Section 372 of the CrPC speaks of an embargo on the filing of an appeal from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by the CrPC or by any

¶17

- 1 - Acq. Appeal (C). No.03 of 2019

¶18

2026:JHHC:40046

¶19

other law for the time being in force. Section 372 is couched in a negative language and it states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by the CrPC or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 372 is a preface to the chapter on appeals which in substance states that appeal can be filed only in accordance with what has been stated in the provisions to follow Section 372. The proviso was introduced to Section 372 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009), which came into effect from 31.12.2009. By virtue of this amendment, a limited right of appeal has been conferred upon the victim of an offence. On a reading of the proviso to Section 372, it is apparent that a victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against : (i) any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or (ii) convicting for a lesser offence or (iii) imposing inadequate compensation. Such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. In fact, with effect from 31.12.2009 when clause (wa) to Section 2 was inserted to the definition of victim, proviso to Section 24 was also added which provides that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under the said sub-section. ”

¶20

4. Thus, in the present case the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur and as such the appeal will lie before the court below itself.

¶21

5. In that view of the matter, the present acquittal appeal is, hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum and work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶22

6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶24

20^th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/Uploaded on 22.04.2026

¶25

- 2 - Acq. Appeal (C). No.03 of 2019

Global Developers through Its Authorized Representative Dinesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Global Developers through Its Authorized Representative Dinesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Rubi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakti Swarnkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiva Jee Singh Alias Shivaji Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amar Choudhary Alias Amar Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jayantvir Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand