THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT DIVISION, KADIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/16751/2025                              ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 16751
                          of 2025

                          In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL/24446/2025

==================================================
      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT
                            DIVISION, KADI
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
AMAL PARESH DAVE(8961) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 11/08/2026

                                      ORDER


1.      This application is 6led under Section 378(4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code or CrPC”) / Section 419(4) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) by the
applicant - complainant seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the
judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadi (hereinafter be referred to as
“the Trial Court), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the
respondents - accused for the oHences under Sections 468, 120B etc
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9AA of the Central Excise and
Salt Act, 1944.


2.      This matter is required to be transferred in view of the decision


                                      Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/16751/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rendered in the case of State of
Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House OJcer 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."



3.      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 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.”


4.      In the decision in case of M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs. M/s.


                                     Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/16751/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




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.
         Gnanasekaran1”. 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, 1973. 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.”


5.      In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled principles, learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this
application. Permission as prayed for is granted. The present
application as well as the connected appeal are disposed of as
withdrawn, with a liberty to 6le appropriate appeal before the
concerned Court, within a period of four months from the date of this
order. Record and proceedings, if lying with this Court, be remitted
back to the concerned Court forthwith.


6.      It is clari6ed that the period that may be consumed in 6ling the
present appeal may not be counted as delay in 6ling such appeal
before the concerned Court. Moreover, the certi6ed copy of the
impugned judgment, be handed over to the applicant/appellant, as
per Rules, if asked for. It is open for the parties to agitate all the
grievance before the concerned Court afresh.




                                     Page 3 of 4
          R/CR.MA/16751/2025                                                        ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




  7.         Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable
  time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make
  endeavour to dispose of the matter, if so 6led, as expeditiously as
  possible.


  8.         It is clari6ed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
  matter at this stage.

                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

  Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/08/2026 17:46:11



                                                      Page 4 of 4