High Court of Chhattisgarh Applies Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) to Uphold Victim’s Right of Appeal in Section 138 NI Act Cases, Granting a 45-Day Grace Period and Waiving Time-Bar
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/462/2019 of BRANCH MANAGER, ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT Vs DOMAN PRASAD DESHMUKH |
| CNR | CGHC010212372019 |
| Date of Registration | 28-06-2019 |
| 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 | Clarification of appellate remedy |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 372 CrPC, NI Act Section 138) |
| Questions of Law | Does the proviso to Section 372 CrPC entitle a victim to appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, and can limitation be waived? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that in light of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), a complainant has a statutory right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to appeal an acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. It directed that the victim-appellant may file such appeal within 45 days and that the appellate court shall not insist on limitation when the appeal is so filed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Celestium to recognize and implement the statutory appellate remedy and to mitigate time-bar obstacles. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Balod in Criminal Case No. 28/2015 under Section 138 NI Act; appellant sought to challenge acquittal. |
| Citations | 2025 CGHC 44675; 2025 INSC 804 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts of Chhattisgarh in appeals under Section 372 CrPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Grants a 45-day window for filing such appeal, irrespective of original limitation.
- Directs appellate courts not to insist on time-bar when appeal is filed within the prescribed grace period.
- Implements the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial principle at the High Court level.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court identified Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) as binding Supreme Court authority on the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- It acknowledged the complainant’s statutory right to appeal an acquittal in Section 138 NI Act proceedings.
- It balanced statutory intent with procedural fairness by allowing a 45-day grace period and waiving limitation objections.
- It concluded that courts must follow Celestium and exercise discretion in favour of victims seeking appellate remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit)
- Relied on Celestium Financial to assert a right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Sought a direction preserving liberty to file appeal despite lapsed limitation.
Respondent (Doman Prasad Deshmukh)
No specific submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The complainant, acting as Branch Manager of a co-operative bank, initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod district, acquitted the accused on 06 February 2019. The bank appealed the acquittal before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 NI Act: creates offence for dishonour of cheque.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: grants victim the right to appeal against acquittal; interpreted in Celestium to include Section 138 cases.
- Limitation: ordinarily 30 days, but the Court allowed 45 days from order to file appeal and waived strict limitation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- Established a 45-day grace period for filing appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Directed appellate courts to disregard limitation when appeal is filed within the grace period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive
Citations
- 2025 CGHC 44675 (High Court of Chhattisgarh)
- Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804