Income Tax Officer (Tds), Grand Walk Mall, Ludhiana Vs Jeewandeep Singh Ghai and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Income Tax Officer (Tds), Grand Walk Mall, Ludhiana Vs Jeewandeep Singh Ghai and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to appeal disposed of in the terms mentioned above: the matter is referred to the concerned Sessions Division, where it will be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, if disputed, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); the Registry is to send the file, along with the Lower Court's Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, S. 413 BNSS, 2023 being analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the ratio of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (complainant-victim proceeding under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC rather than S. 378 CrPC) applies to this leave-to-appeal application arising out of an acquittal. +1 more

Court's answer

S. 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 of the CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran shall apply to this case.

Ratio / Principle

The complainant should not be made to bear the burden of filing an appeal afresh before the Sessions Court merely because the law has recently been interpreted; equity, justice and fair play support referring the matter instead.

Key takeaways

The matter is to be referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.ratio¶27
If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal lies under the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana H.C. (Anoop Chitkara J., single judge), CRM-A-1846-2019, decided 04.12.2025 (reportable: No): The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Grand Walk Mall, Ludhiana — complainant in Criminal Complaint No. 19/22.01.2013 (COMA/47183/2013, CNR No. PBLD03-000017-2013, decided 16.02.2019), which the trial court dismissed on merits while acquitting the accused, Jeewandeep Singh Ghai and another — had sought leave to appeal before this Court. Acting on counsel's prayer for transfer, and adopting the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (decided 08.04.2025) — under which a complainant who is the victim of a Section 138 cheque-dishonour offence may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC rather than Section 378 CrPC — this Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that the Celestium ratio applies. So that the complainant need not file an appeal afresh, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, if the governing code is disputed, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed); the Registry to forward the file with the Lower Court's Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. Leave to appeal disposed of; pending applications closed.

CRM-A-1846-2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202

CRM-A-1846-2019

Date of Decision: 04.12.2025

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), GRAND WALK MALL, LUDHIANA ......Applicant

Versus

JEEWANDEEP SINGH GHAI AND ANOTHER ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the applicant.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal No. 19/22.01.2013 Complaint COMA/47183/2013 CNR No. PBLD03-000017-2013 Date of decision: 16.02.2019

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui7ng the accused/respondents, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men9oned applica9on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of leave to appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes9um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

In Celes9um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec9on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic9m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op9on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec9on 378 of the CrPC.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic9on is not merely a statutory right but can also be

JYOTI 2025.12.04 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-A-1846-2019

2

construed to be a fundamental right under Ar9cles 14 and 21 of the Cons9tu9on. If that is so, then the right of a vic9m of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquiHal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic9m to file an appeal on the grounds men9oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser9on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic9m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec9ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic9m of an offence is a complainant, he can s9ll proceed under the proviso to Sec9on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec9on (4) of Sec9on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra9o of Celes9um Financial shall apply.

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Jus9ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maHer to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objec9on regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men9oned above. All pending applica9on(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.12.2025 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

JYOTI 2025.12.04 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.