[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bell Marshal Telesystems Ltd. vs Universal Travel Services And Ors. on 25 March, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
Digitally
signed by
2026:BHC-AS:14139 CHITRA
CHITRA
SANJAY
SONAWANE
SANJAY
SONAWANE Date:
2026.03.25
15:53:48
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 7-CA-494-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2007
Bell Marshal Telesystems Ltd
A Company having business and
registered and Corporate office
at 1107, Maker Chambers, V Nariman
Point, Mumbai-21.
(through MD Mr Bhupesh Mohanlal
Rathod) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Universal Travel Services
2. Shital Joshi,
Proprietor of Universal Travel Services
carrying on her business at 201,
Sai Niwas, Subhash road, near
Ram Mandir, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai-57.
& also at,
D-211, Oberoi Garden Estate,
Chandivali Farma road, Opp. Saki
Vihar road, Andheri Mumbai
and residing at,
C-809, Lake View Side,
Raheja Vihar, Powai, Mumbai-72.
3.The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents.
Page No. 1 of 5
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:01:50 :::
Chitra Sonawane 7-CA-494-2007.doc
With
Criminal Application No.1267 of 2015
In
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2007
Bell Finvest (India) Limited
Formerly known as "Bell Marshall
Telesystems Pvt Ltd"
Having its registered office at
1107, Maker Chambers V, Nariman
Point, Mumbai-21
through its Law Officer
Mr Prajyot Sawardekar
Age: 24 yrs, Occ: Service,
Designation Law Officer ... Applicant
Vs.
1. Universal Travel Services
2. Shital Joshi,
(Proprietor of Universal Travel Services
having address at,
a. 201, Sai Niwas, Subhash road, near
Ram Mandir, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai-57.
b. D-211, Oberoi Garden Estate,
Chandivali Farma road, Opp. Saki
Vihar road, Andheri Mumbai
and residing at,
C-809, Lake View Side,
Raheja Vihar, Powai, Mumbai-72.
Page No. 2 of 5
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2026 22:01:50 :::
Chitra Sonawane 7-CA-494-2007.doc
3. State of Maharashtra
(through Public Prosecutor) ... Respondents.
---
Mr Vinit Mehta (through VC) for the appellant.
Ms Sangeeta Phad, APP for the respondent / State.
None for respondents No.1 and 2.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 25 March 2026.
P.C. :
The present appeal calls into question the Judgment
and Order dated 17 February 2007, passed by the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge, Small Causes
Court, Mumbai, in CC No.2366/SS/205, whereby the
respondents No.1 and 2 herein came to be acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.3/
State, drawing attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A Gnanasekaran,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, submitted that proviso to
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(CrPC), confers statutory right upon appellant to assail the
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-CA-494-2007.doc
order of acquittal. They further submitted that, in order to
enable effective exercise of this right and to ensure access to
proper adjudicatory forum, the present appeal be
transferred to the competent Sessions Court. Reliance is also
placed on the decisions in Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd Vs
Nobiletto Finlease and Investments, Criminal Appeal
No.645 of 2006 dated 31 October 2025, Delhi High Court;
Pooja Trading Compnay v/s Harishchandra Manjrekar,
Criminal Appeal No.1016 of 2006 daed 13 October 2025,
Bombay High Court; Shivputra Arwat vs Sangappa
Bhasgikar, Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2008 dated 8
October 2025, Bombay High Court; Salimshah Haji
Shakrushan vs Syd Javdali Syd Anwarali, Criminal Appeal
No.167 of 2006 dated 15 October 2025, Bombay High
Court at Aurangabad; 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 is no impediment
in transferring the appeal to the concerned Sessions Court.
3. Considering the submissions advanced and the
decisions cited above, it is clear that the the victim,
including the complainant in proceedings u/s 138 of the NI
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-CA-494-2007.doc
Act, is entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC
to challenge an acquittal. In light of this, it is considered
appropriate that the present appeal be transferred to the
Court of Sessions having jurisdiction, so as to enable the
appellant to pursue statutory remedy before the proper
forum.
4. Accordignly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed
to take necessary steps for prompt transmission of the
entire record to the concerned Sessions Court. Upon
receipt, the Sessions Court shall register the appeal and
decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with
the law. Considering the long pendency of the matter, the
learned Sessions Judge is requested to dispose of the appeal
expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
As a sequel, the pending criminal application also stands
disposed of.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
