Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA Nos. 396 of 2023 & 206 of 2025 of Indian Agro And Food Industries Limited v. Abdul Amin & Mohammad Nadeem |
| CNR | CGHC010413752023 |
| Date of Registration | 21-12-2023 |
| 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 |
| Precedent Value | Reaffirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 & CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a victim can appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC following the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) to hold that a complainant has the right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. It granted the appellant leave to file such appeal within 45 days of the order and directed the appropriate court not to insist on limitation while deciding it. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as set out in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant challenged acquittal orders under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by JMFC Rajnandgaon and sought leave to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows | Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a complainant can seek leave and file an appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Grants victims a 45-day window from the High Court’s order to file the appeal.
- Directs the appellate court not to insist on limitation if the appeal is lodged within the specified period.
- Reinforces the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial interpretation in lower courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) to interpret the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- It held that the victim (complainant) has a statutory right to appeal an order of acquittal under that proviso.
- The court granted leave to the appellant to file such appeal within 45 days of the High Court’s order.
- It directed the appropriate court to waive limitation objections for appeals filed within that period.
- Registry was instructed to return certified copies and records to the appellant’s counsel and to forward the file to the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial to assert the right to appeal acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Sought liberty to file the appeal and a waiver of limitation.
Factual Background
Indian Agro And Food Industries Limited challenged acquittals granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, in two criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant invoked the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, seeking leave to appeal the acquittal orders, and relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
Statutory Analysis
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Held to entitle a victim to prefer an appeal against any order of acquittal, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
- Limitation: The High Court directed that limitation would not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within 45 days of the High Court’s order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court provided a 45-day window for filing an appeal against acquittal, irrespective of prior limitation bars.
- Directed the appellate court to disregard limitation issues for such appeals filed within the prescribed period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision adheres to and implements the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44586 NAFR
- Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804