[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ajay Pandurang Walzade vs Shantaram Gabaji Dhole And Co. And Anr. on 26 March, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:14580 Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.03.26
17:48:40
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 904-919 of 2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.919 of 2008
Mr Ajay Pandurang Walzade
Age: 46 yrs, Occ : Agriculture
R/at Narayangaon, Tal-Junnar,
Dist-Pune ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Shantaram Gabaji Dhone & Co.
Through on behalf of proprietor
Mr Sanjay Shantaram Dhole
Age: adult, Occ: Business
R/at APMC Fruit market
J-465, Sector 19, Turbhe
New Bombay.
2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents.
---
Ms Sulajja Patil i/by Mr Uday B Nighot for the appellant.
Ms Anagha A Deshmukh, APP for the respondent / State.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 26 March, 2026.
P.C. :
The present appeal calls into question the judgment
and order dated 17 May 2008, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junnar, in STC No.288 of
____________________________________________
26 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 904-919 of 2008.doc
2005, whereby respondent No.1 herein came to be
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant 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. He 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
____________________________________________
26 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 904-919 of 2008.doc
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, 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, this Court deems it
appropriate to transfer the present appeal 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
____________________________________________
26 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane 904-919 of 2008.doc
expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
26 March 2026
