[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Arun Dattajirao Patil vs Ravindra Madhavrao Ghorpade And Ors. on 17 March, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:13157
Mamta Kale 16-apeal-851-2007.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2007
Arun Dattajirao Patil
Age 59 years, Occupation : Business,
R/at: Flat No.4, Building No.9,
Sarvodaya Society, N.I.B.M. Road,
Pune - 411 048. ... Appellant
versus
1. Ravindra Madhavrao Ghorpade,
Age 35 years, Occupation: Business,
MAMTA
AMAR KALE
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2026.03.17
19:44:07 +0530 2. Sandeep Madhavrao Ghorpade,
Age 32 years, Occupation: Business,
Both R/at: C/o. Ambika Agro Industries,
Rajbau Corner, Kadamwak Vasti,
At Post. Loni Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli,
District : Pune.
3. The State of Maharashtra
(Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor
of High Court of Judicature at Bombay) ...Respondents
----
Ms Sairuchita Chowdhary h/f Mr Shekhar Jagtap i/b J Shekhar
Associates, for the Appellant.
Ms Anagha A Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 17 March 2026
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 16-apeal-851-2007.docx
P.C.:
. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
representing the respondent / State.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order
dated 30 April 2005, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, in S.T.C.C.
No.1401 of 2003, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent/State, placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial
vs A Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine 1320, submits that the
appellant possesses a statutory right to prefer an appeal against
an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is therefore contended
that the present appeal may appropriately be transferred to the
competent Sessions Court. It is further submitted by the
learned APP that such transfer would be necessary to ensure
that the appellant is able to effectively exercise the statutory
right of appeal and is not deprived of the forum contemplated
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 16-apeal-851-2007.docx
under law. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions in Pankaj
Mehta vs. Vishal Hundar, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 800; Sunil
Kumar vs Daljit Kaur, 2025:PHHC:092344; and Raj Kumar vs
Rajender, 2025: PHHC: 079740, to submit that there exists no
legal impediment in transferring the present appeal to the
concerned Sessions Court. The learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant shows her inability to argue the matter.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned APP
and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium
Financial (supra), it is clear that a victim of an offence,
including a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act, has
the statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of
acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The
appeal, which has been pending before this Court, is hereby
transferred to the concerned Sessions Court. The transfer is
necessary to ensure that the appellant can exercise the statutory
right of appeal without being deprived of an available forum.
Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take
immediate steps to transfer the complete records of the appeal,
and transmit a copy of this order to the Sessions Court
forthwith. The concerned Sessions Court shall register the
appeal and proceed to hear and decide the matter on its own
merits and in accordance with the law. Considering the long
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 16-apeal-851-2007.docx
pendency of the matter, the Sessions Court is requested to
endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
