The High Court clarifies that the State, recognized as a ‘victim’ within Section 2(wa) CrPC, may withdraw an acquittal appeal under Section 378(3) with liberty to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS) before the Sessions Court, following the Supreme Court’s holding in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025). This order upholds and applies Supreme Court precedent, with practical guidance on limitation issues for similar criminal cases involving appeals by the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/279/2017 of State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Matlub Ahmed |
| CNR | CGHC010323282017 |
| Date of Registration | 23-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the State, as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, may withdraw a pending acquittal appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC and seek liberty to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial. The Court ruled that such appeal should be permitted within 60 days from the receipt of order and the Sessions Court should not insist upon limitation if so filed. This enables the State to seek appellate remedies as a ‘victim’, broadening recognition of victim rights for State entities in criminal process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The State, dissatisfied with the acquittal of accused under Sections 294 and 323 IPC by JMFC, Ambikapur, filed an appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC before the High Court. During hearing, the State cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial and sought liberty to withdraw the present appeal and prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., 2025 INSC 804 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court recognizes the State as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, thus enabling it to avail appellate remedies under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Lawyers can move for withdrawal of acquittal appeals under Section 378(3) CrPC and seek liberty to file fresh appeals as “victims” before the Sessions Court.
- Clarifies that, upon specific direction, limitation shall not bar the Sessions Court from hearing such appeals filed within the prescribed period stated in the High Court’s order.
- The precedent directly applies Supreme Court guidance and sets out procedural directions for similar future cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court heard the State’s counsel, who contended that the appellant qualifies as a “victim” and relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025).
- The Supreme Court precedent was cited for the proposition that a complainant is also to be considered a victim and is entitled to utilize the remedy under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Taking into account the submissions and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “victim,” the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the pending acquittal appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC and granted liberty to the State to file a fresh appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS).
- The Court specifically ordered that if such an appeal is filed within 60 days from receipt of the present order, the Sessions Court shall not insist upon limitation and will adjudicate on merits.
- Directions were issued to return the certified copy of the judgment and to send the record back to the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant-State):
- Argued that the State qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial, which extended the right to appeal as a victim.
- Requested permission to withdraw the current appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC with liberty to file a fresh appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court.
- Submitted that limitation should not bar the Sessions Court from hearing the appeal on merits.
Respondent:
- No appearance; none for respondents.
Factual Background
The State of Chhattisgarh appealed before the High Court challenging an acquittal of the accused under Sections 294 and 323 IPC by the JMFC, Ambikapur, in Criminal Case No. 1105 of 2014. During the pendency of the appeal, the State sought to withdraw the appeal on the basis of a Supreme Court decision, seeking liberty to approach the Sessions Court as a “victim” with a fresh appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondents during the hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and corresponding Section 2(y) of the BNSS.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC, as the statutory route for victims to appeal acquittals, was interpreted and applied following Supreme Court precedent.
- Section 378(3) CrPC (requiring leave to appeal an acquittal) was engaged but set aside upon withdrawal, with liberty granted for a fresh appeal as “victim” under Section 372.
- The implications for Section 413 BNSS (proviso analogous to Section 372) were noted.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that the Sessions Court, upon fresh filing within 60 days, must not insist on limitation as a bar, but instead decide the appeal on merits.
- Registry was instructed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining an attested photocopy.
- The case record was promptly ordered returned to the trial court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court applies and affirms Supreme Court precedent set by M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025).
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – The Court expressly directed that limitation should not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within 60 days from receipt of the order.