Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Sai Agro Service vs Dhalsingh Chandrakar on 11 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:32156
NAFR
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH
COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
o=HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=CHATTISGARH,
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
c=IN
Date: 2025.07.14
12:02:14 +0530
ACQA No. 77 of 2024
Shri Sai Agro Service Through Its Proprietor Shri Kuldeep Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, S/o
Shri Hemchand Sahu, Resident Of Ews 274, Sector-4, Pt. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil
And District- Raipur (CG) ... Appellant.
versus
Dhalsingh Chandrakar S/o Late Makhan Lal Chandrakar, Kunal Krishi Kendra, Patanpul
Sadbhavna Chowk Utai, District-Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
SB : Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
11.07.2025
1. The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal against the judgment of acquittal
dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in
Complaint Case No.3931/2019, whereby, the respondent/accused has been
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short, “the NI Act“).
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently in the
judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804,
right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it
2
was held that the 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 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
45 days from this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.
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 order/judgment and relevant
documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining its photocopy.
5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay