The Chhattisgarh High Court, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s reasoning in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), clarified that a complainant qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, with the Sessions Court not to insist on limitation if the appeal is filed within the period granted by the High Court. This order upholds the current precedent, offers binding value in Chhattisgarh, and especially affects environmental law prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/846/2014 of C.G. Environment Conservation Board Vs Shri P.K. Agrawal and Anr. |
| CNR | CGHC010276092014 |
| Date of Registration | 16-09-2014 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Environmental Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the complainant is a “victim” as per Section 2(wa) CrPC and thus competent to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court, following Supreme Court guidance, allowed the appellant to withdraw the current petition and directed the Sessions Court not to insist upon the limitation if an appeal is brought within the period stipulated by the High Court’s order. The order thus facilitates statutory appeals by regulatory bodies in environmental prosecutions, aligning with recent Supreme Court guidance and clarifying the application of limitation where the High Court grants leave. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Supreme Court’s interpretation that a complainant is a “victim” and entitled to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, with the liberty to approach the appellate forum irrespective of limitation if so permitted by the High Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complaint was filed under Section 44 of the Water Pollution Act, Section 37 of the Air Pollution Act, and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, and the C.G. Environment Conservation Board, as complainant, appealed under Section 378(4) CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that a regulatory board/complainant in an environmental offence case is a “victim” entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against acquittal.
- Clarifies that, if permitted by the High Court, limitation will not bar such an appeal if filed within the period specified by the Court.
- Sessions Courts are directed not to insist on limitation when the High Court specifically grants liberty to file within a stipulated time.
- Lawyers handling environmental prosecutions and statutory bodies can directly rely on this order, citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., which held that a “complainant” is to be treated as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- The Court noted that, as per the Supreme Court, a complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- On the limitation question, the Court observed the Supreme Court’s direction granting liberty to prefer such an appeal without limitation being a bar if so ordered.
- Consequently, the High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the present petition and permitted appeal within 60 days, directing the Sessions Court not to insist on the limitation period in deciding the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the petitioner qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., which held that a complainant can appeal as a victim.
- Sought liberty to withdraw the petition and file an appeal before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and requested that limitation should not be an impediment.
Respondent
- Did not oppose the submissions and relief sought by the petitioner.
Factual Background
The C.G. Environment Conservation Board prosecuted the respondents for alleged offences under Section 44 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974; Section 37 of the Air Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981; and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora acquitted the accused. The Board, as complainant, filed a petition under Section 378(4) CrPC, seeking leave to appeal the acquittal. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw and file the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Defines “victim,” interpreted (per Supreme Court) to include a complainant in such cases.
- Section 372 CrPC (proviso): Grants a “victim” the right to appeal against acquittal.
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Typically governs appeals by complainants; in this context, the Court permitted recourse to Section 372’s proviso as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- The judgment also noted Section 413 of the BNSS as the equivalent provision under the new Code.
Procedural Innovations
- The Registry was directed to return the certified judgment copy after retaining an attested photocopy, ensuring administrative efficiency.
- The High Court expressly instructed that limitation should not be a bar if appeal is filed within the period permitted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and applies the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. (2025 INSC 804).