Clarifying the Right of Appeal Post–Celestium Financial: High Court Upholds Complainant’s Liberty to File Acquittal Appeals Within Relaxed Limitation Period in Negotiable Instruments Matters
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA 206 of 2025 of INDIAN AGRO AND FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs MOHAMMAD NADEEM |
| CNR | CGHC010126112025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court’s holding in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 372 CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Does the complainant have a right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) to hold that the victim/complainant in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution may prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court granted liberty to file such an appeal within 45 days and directed that limitation would not be insisted upon if filed in time. This decision reaffirms that inherent appellate rights of complainants survive acquittal and that courts may relax limitation for filing remedial appeals in the interests of justice. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Applied the Supreme Court’s declaration on the right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC; no further distinct authorities were invoked. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Two appeals challenging separate acquittals under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were filed by Indian Agro And Food Industries Limited against judgments of the JMFC, Rajnandgaon. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows | Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case has a statutory right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Grants liberty to file the appeal within 45 days of the High Court’s order, with assurance that limitation will be relaxed if the appeal is filed in time.
- Establishes a procedural precedent for high courts to dispose of acquittal appeals by reserving liberty rather than dismissing for limitation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Two appeals challenged acquittals under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon.
- Appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), which recognized the complainant’s right to appeal acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- The High Court applied that principle, held that the appellant had a right to prefer such an appeal, and exercised its discretion to grant liberty to file within 45 days.
- The court directed that the appellate court would not insist on limitation if the appeal was filed within the period granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) to assert the right of a complainant to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Factual Background
Indian Agro And Food Industries Limited filed two separate appeals against the acquittals of respondents in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acquittals were rendered by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2378/2016 and 456/2018 on 02-05-2023. The appellant sought to challenge those acquittals and invoked recent Supreme Court authority to do so.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 372 CrPC: The proviso permits a complainant/victim to file an appeal against an acquittal.
- The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s interpretation that this right exists independently of common prosecution appeals and may be enforced even if limitation would otherwise have expired.
Procedural Innovations
- High court’s practice of disposing acquittal appeals by reserving liberty to file and relaxing limitation, providing a template for similar cases.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmed the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804).
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44586
- Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804