Clarifying the appellant’s right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC, upholding the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial precedent and guiding High Court procedure in NI Act acquittal appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/157/2020 of PRAGATI MAHILA NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT Vs A. CHANNEYA |
| CNR | CGHC010086902020 |
| Date of Registration | 09-03-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Clarificatory and binding within Chhattisgarh jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure (CrPC) / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 |
| Questions of Law | Does the proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC grant a complainant the right to appeal an acquittal? |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Celestium Financial to recognize and operationalize the appellate remedy under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering NI Act acquittal appeals |
| Follows | Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a complainant in a cheque-bounce case may appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC.
- Permits filing such appeals within 45 days from the High Court’s order, with automatic condonation of delay.
- High Court will not insist on strict limitation if the appeal is lodged within the prescribed period.
- Establishes a clear procedural pathway—return of certified copies and remittance of records—to facilitate timely appellate filings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), which construed the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as granting victims a right to appeal acquittals.
- Observed that the proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC places appeals by complainants on the same footing as appeals against conviction.
- Held that, in view of Celestium, these Acquittal Appeals must be disposed by granting liberty to file a formal appeal within a specified period.
- Directed that any appeal filed within 45 days would proceed without insistence on limitation, consistent with inherent powers under CrPC.
- Ordered procedural steps for return of certified copies and remittal of records to ensure appellants can invoke the remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Bank)
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial ruling to assert a right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested disposal of the appeals with liberty to file the statutory appeal.
Respondent (Accused)
- Did not oppose the bank’s prayer for liberty to prefer an appeal.
Factual Background
Pragati Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit lodged two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, acquitted the accused on 21 October 2019 (Complaint No. 4678/2013) and on 5 August 2019 (RCC No. 4677/2013). The bank filed Acquittal Appeals (Nos. 157/2020 and 160/2020) under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The High Court, applying Celestium Financial, disposed the appeals reserving liberty to file a formal appeal within 45 days.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 372(1) CrPC bars the State (prosecutor) from appealing an acquittal.
- The proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC empowers the “victim” or complainant to prefer an appeal against acquittal.
- The Supreme Court in Celestium held that such appeals lie before the same appellate court that hears appeals against conviction.
- The High Court has discretion under CrPC to condone delay and facilitate statutory rights conferred by the proviso.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms and operationalizes the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44516
- Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804
- CNR CGHC010086902020