[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ranjana Kishor Pawar vs Krishnan Puwappa Shetty And Anr. on 25 March, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
Digitally
signed by
2026:BHC-AS:14136 CHITRA
CHITRA
SANJAY
SONAWANE
SANJAY
SONAWANE Date:
2026.03.25
15:53:49
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 901-CA-975-2006.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2006
Ranjana Kishor Pawar
Age: 36 yrs, Occ: Household
R/o Pawar Chawl, MN Road,
Kurla (W), Mumbai. ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Krishnan Puwappa Shetty
Age: Nil; Occ: Business,
R/o R.No.15 and 16, Small Gol Building,
Opp Bhabha Hospital, Kurla (W)
Mumbai-70
2. The State of Maharashtra
notice be served upon the office of
APP High Court (AS),Mumbai ...Respondents.
---
Mr IM Khairdi (through VC) a/w Ms Saniya Khairdi for the
appellant.
Ms MR Tidke, APP for the respondent / State.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 25 March 2026.
P.C. :
The present appeal calls into question the judgment
and order dated 6 October 2005, passed by the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikhroli,
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 901-CA-975-2006.doc
Mumbai, in CC No.301/SS/2005 (Old No.129/Misc./2000,
whereby respondent No.1 came to be acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.2/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 order of acquittal. It is further urged 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
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 901-CA-975-2006.doc
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 victim including the
complainant in proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act, is entitled
to invoke the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC to challenge
an acquittal. In light of the above, 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
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 901-CA-975-2006.doc
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.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
25 March 2026
