Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kantilal B. Rathod vs Rajendra D. Mehra And Anr.
2026 Latest Caselaw 2797 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2797 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kantilal B. Rathod vs Rajendra D. Mehra And Anr. on 17 March, 2026

Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:13159

                          Mamta Kale                                                                                21-apeal-112-2006.docx


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                               Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2006
                      Kantilal B Rathod
                      Age 45 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,
                      Residing at : 605, Divya Jyot
                      Building, B Wing, R. K. Singh Marg,
                      Off Nagardas Road, Andheri (East),
                      Mumbai - 400 069.                                                                             ... Appellant
                           versus
                      1. Rajendra D Mehra,
MAMTA
AMAR KALE
                      Age 45 years, Occu. Business,
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2026.03.17
19:44:07 +0530        Pathology Department, 6,
                      Ground Floor, Dipti Navsurgeon
                      Building, Opp. Dena Bank, Near
                      Ram Leela Maidan, Daftary
                      Road, Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097,
                      present address 28, Rashmi Park,
                      Valif, Vasai (East), District Thane.

                      2. The State of Maharashtra                                                                   ...Respondents
                                                  ----
                      Mr A A Kocharekar, for the Appellant.
                      Mr Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the Respondent / State.
                                                  ----
                                                         Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 17 March 2026 P.C.:

. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the

__________________________________________________

17 March 2026

Mamta Kale 21-apeal-112-2006.docx

learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent/ State.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 28 September 2004, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, in C.C. No.1249/S/2002, whereby respondent No.1 herein was acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP representing 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 under law. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions in Pankaj Mehta vs. Vishal Hundar, 2026 SCC

__________________________________________________

17 March 2026

Mamta Kale 21-apeal-112-2006.docx

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.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and 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 pendency of the matter, the Sessions Court is requested to endeavour to dispose

__________________________________________________

17 March 2026

Mamta Kale 21-apeal-112-2006.docx

of the appeal expeditiously.

5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

__________________________________________________

17 March 2026

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter