STATE OF GUJARAT - THRO' ARVINDBHAI H ZALA, DRUG INSPECTORversusJAGDISHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI PATEL

   R/CR.A/875/2012                             JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 875 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
          Approved for Reporting              Yes          No
                                                           --
==========================================================
 STATE OF GUJARAT - THRO' ARVINDBHAI H ZALA, DRUG INSPECTOR
                            Versus
              JAGDISHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS NITYA P JOSHI FOR MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                          Date : 07/08/2026
                            JUDGMENT


1. The present appeal is       led by the appellant – State of
Gujarat under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’ for short)
against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2010 passed by
the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) whereby the
Trial Court has acquitted the respondent herein from the
charges under Sections18(c), 18(a)(vi) and 27()(ii) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

2. The appellant – had             led the complain against the
respondent-accused under Sections18(c), 18(a)(vi) and 27()(ii)
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. During the course of
investigation and after considering the documents, the police
found su6icient material and         led charge-sheet in the trial

                              Page 1 of 5
   R/CR.A/875/2012                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2026




Court. The trial Court recorded the plea and as the accused
pleaded not guilty to the o6ence, therefore, as the o6ence was
triable by the trial Court, the trial was proceeded and the
impugned judgment and order was delivered by the trial
Court on 22.10.2010 acquitting the respondents- accused
from the charges levelled against him.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

4. This matter is required to be transferred in view of the
decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rendered in the
case of State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House
O icer Vs. Mohanlal Bagde, reported in [2019] SCC
OnLine Chh 102 wherein, the Court has referred the earlier
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of of
Subhash          Chand   vs    State           (Delhi   Administration),
reported in (2013) 2 SCC 17, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed and held in para-18 as under :

      “18. If we analyse Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that the State
      Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to #le an appeal
      against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a
      cognizable and non- bailable o*ence because of the categorical bar
      created by Section 378(1)(b). Such appeals, that is appeals against
      orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a
      cognizable and non-bailable o*ence can only be #led in the
      Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed
      by the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words "in any
      case" but leaves out orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in
      respect of a cognizable and non-bailable o*ence from the control of
      the State Government. Therefore, in all other cases where orders
      of acquittal are passed appeals can be #led by the Public
      Prosecutor as directed by the State Government to the High
      Court."
5. It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana rendered in case of
Mohanlal Vs. Gaurav Kumar and Anr., reported in 2025


                                 Page 2 of 5
   R/CR.A/875/2012                                JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2026




PHHC 162308, wherein the Court has observed and held in
para-3 as under :

      “3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs.
      A.Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after
      considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections
      372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to
      #le an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of
      Sessions.”


6. In the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A.Gnanasekaran
Etc. reported in 2025 (3) GLH 747 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held and observed in para – 7.12 as under:-

        “7.12      The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see
        and can be elaborated as follows:

        Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer
        an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition
        precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the
        Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has
        su*ered the impact of the o*ence committed by a person who is
        charged of the o*ence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has
        been dishonoured.

        Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par
        with the right of an accused who has su*ered a conviction, who,
        as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the
        CrPC. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an
        appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being
        subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime,
        whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a
        right to prefer an appeal.

        Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it #t to
        insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any
        condition precedent to be ful#lled by the victim of an o*ence,
        which expression also includes the legal representatives of a
        deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as
        against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public
        Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not
        prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the
        leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the
        State or a complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to
        a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking
        special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4)



                                  Page 3 of 5
   R/CR.A/875/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2026




        of the CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the
        Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

        Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to
        circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has
        with regard to a complainant or the State #ling an appeal. On the
        other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section
        372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an o*ence
        to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as
        compared to a complainant.

        Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an o*ence
        under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is
        because the complaint #led under that provision is in the nature
        of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the CrPC and Section
        143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions
        of the CrPC in the matter of trial of such a deemed o*ence tried
        as a criminal o*ence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the
        victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in
        terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the de#nition of
        victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.”
7. In the decision in case of M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs.
M/s. Rajit Enterprises dated 12.02.2026 passed in Special
Leave to Appeal No.12350 of 2024 the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:-

      “Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
      recent judgment of this Court in “Celestium Financial vs. A.
      Gnanasekaran”. By way of the said judgment, a co-ordinate Bench
      of this Court held that a complainant in a case arising under
      Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a ‘victim’
      who would be entitled to #le an appeal under the proviso to
      Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. It was
      further held that such appeal could be #led against an order of
      acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code without
      seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code.
      However, this judgment did not take into account the earlier
      decisions of this Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P. and
      Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), which have a
      bearing on both the aspects that were considered in the
      aforestated judgment, as they held to the contrary.”


8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that
the matter in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A.
Gyanasekaran (supra) is now pending at large before the



                                 Page 4 of 5
     R/CR.A/875/2012                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2026




Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Everest Automobiles
Vs. M/s. Ranjit Enterprises in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 12350/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that it is desirable that a larger Bench gives an
authoritative pronouncement on this issue as it has far-
reaching consequences.

9. In view of the said submissions and the decisions of
di6erent Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Registry to transfer the appeal to the concerned Sessions
Court. After it is transferred to the concerned Sessions Court,
it has to be treated as an Appeal under the proviso under
Section 372 of the Code / Section 413 of BNSS and numbered
accordingly and issue notice to the parties. The Registry is
directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including
the certi ed copies of the order impugned and record &
proceedings, if lying with this Court, to the concerned lower
Appellate Court, forthwith.

10. Considering that the matter has been pending for
considerable time, the lower Appellate Court is required to
make endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible. It is clari ed that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the matter at this stage.

                                                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/08/2026 17:56:39




                                                       Page 5 of 5