RAILWAY AUTHORITY KAMLESHWAR SINGH, DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

 R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025)                 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        5140 of 2025

                       In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL/620/2025

==================================================
      RAILWAY AUTHORITY KAMLESHWAR SINGH, DIVISIONAL SECURITY
                          COMMISSIONER
                               Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
TANMAY B JOSHI(9457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 21/08/2026

                                       ORDER


1.     This is an application for condonation of delay of 243 days
caused in preferring the Criminal Appeal against the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.03.2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railway), Rajkot (hereinafter
be referred to as “the trial Court”).



2.     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 OBcer 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



                                       Page 1 of 4
 R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025)                    ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




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.
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


                                       Page 2 of 4
 R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025)                      ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




        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/s as well as the connected appeal are disposed of as
withdrawn, with a liberty to Kle appropriate appeal before the
concerned Court, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. Record and proceedings, if lying with this
Court, be remitted back to the concerned Court forthwith.


6.     While considering the delay, the period from which the present
appeal is Kled, till the time this appeal is disposed of, will not be
considered in the aspect of considering the delay in Kling appeal
under section 372 of the Code (Section 413 of BNSS). The Appellate
Court will have to take into consideration the delay of 243 days at the
time when the said appeal is Kled before the concerned Sessions
Court. The certiKed 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.


7.     Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable


                                       Page 3 of 4
     R/CR.MA/5140/2025(GJHC240010262025)                                                ORDER DATED: 21/08/2026




   time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make
   endeavour to dispose of the matter, if so Kled, as expeditiously as
   possible.


   8.        It is clariKed 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 24/08/2026 16:16:52


                                                       Page 4 of 4