[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jemin Ramesh Talati vs Surendra A. Poojari And Anr. on 17 March, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:13165
Mamta Kale 28-apeal-1252-2006.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1252 of 2006
Jemin Ramesh Talati
Age 26 years, Occ. Service,
R/at: First Floor, Jay-Gujarat
Annex Building, Golibar Road,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 055. ... Appellant
versus
1. Surendra A Poojari
Age 45 years, Occ. Business,
MAMTA
AMAR KALE
R/at.: B-403, Panchsheel CHS Ltd.
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2026.03.17
19:44:08 +0530 4th Floor, Near Dhobighat, Vakola,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 055.
2. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
----
None for the Appellant.
Ms M R Tidke, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 17 March 2026
P.C.:
. Today, when the matter is called out, none present for the
appellant and respondent No.1. The present appeal has
remained pending since the year 2006.
2. The present appeal arises against the judgment and order
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 28-apeal-1252-2006.docx
dated 6 July 2006, passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, in C.C.
No.68/SS/2006 (Old C.C. No.2485/SS/2005), whereby
respondent No.1 herein was 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
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
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 28-apeal-1252-2006.docx
concerned Sessions Court.
4. Considering 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 of the appeal expeditiously.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
Mamta Kale 28-apeal-1252-2006.docx
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
17 March 2026
