Bombay High Court
PRADEEP UTTAMRAO SABLEversusSAIDATTA ENTERPRISES THROUGH AUTHORISED PERSON SHIVKUMAR MADHUKAR MURTI
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The High Court ordered transfer of the proceedings to the concerned District and Sessions Court, to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and excluded the period spent on the leave application from the limitation period.
Summary
The applicant filed a leave application seeking permission to appeal an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and requested that the appeal be transferred to the District and Sessions Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran. The High Court considered whether such a transfer was permissible and how the appeal should be categorized. It held that the matter should be transferred to the appropriate District and Sessions Court and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in line with the Supreme Court precedent. The Court also directed that the time spent prosecuting the leave application be excluded from the limitation period for the appeal. The application was subsequently disposed off.
Issues considered
- Whether a leave application for appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act can be transferred to the District and Sessions Court.
- Whether the appeal should be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran.
- Whether the period spent in prosecuting the leave application should be excluded from the limitation period for the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 372
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- appeal
- transfer of proceedings
- Section 372
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- limitation period
- leave to appeal
- acquittal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46467
27-ALP-110-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
27 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 110 OF 2024
PRADEEP UTTAMRAO SABLE
VERSUS
SAIDATTA ENTERPRISES THROUGH AUTHORISED PERSON
SHIVKUMAR MADHUKAR MURTI
.…
Mr. K. A. Ingle, Advocate for Applicant
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 05 October, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that, the
instant application has been preferred seeking leave to file appeal
against the order of acquittal from offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. He prays that, now, in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium
Financial v. Ganasekaran Etc. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320], he
would contest the appeal before learned District and Sessions
Court and hence urges that, the same be transferred to the District
Court.
2. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 27-ALP-110-2024
ORDER
(i) The present proceedings be transferred to the concerned
District and Sessions Court. Learned Registrar (Judicial)
of this Court to take further necessary action for
transferring this matter to the concerned District and
Sessions Court, immediately.
(ii) The learned Trial Court to whom this matter will be
assigned, after registering it, shall issue notice to the
concerned parties, and thereafter, proceed further with
the matter in accordance with law.
(iii) The concerned Trial Court shall treat this matter as
appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as per the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial (supra).
(iv) Learned District and Sessions Judge to exclude the period
spent in prosecuting instant leave application before this
Court while calculating the period of limitation.
(v) Application stands disposed off.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
2 of 2
Checking your session…