Bombay High Court
M/S. SULPHUR MILLS LTD.versusKAMIREDDY MURALI REDDY S/O. SUBRAMANYAN AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AARTI A SATHE
Holding
The Court allowed the withdrawal of the Section 378(4) application and granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 372 within eight weeks, with the benefit of the elapsed period for condonation of delay.
Summary
M/s. Sulphur Mills Ltd., the original complainant and victim, filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Gnanasekaran, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the present application and instead file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court. The Court, agreeing with the Supreme Court precedent, allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to file the Section 372 appeal within eight weeks, permitting the appellant to claim the time elapsed on the withdrawn application for condonation of any delay. The Court also directed the Registry to return the certified copy of the impugned order for filing the appeal. Consequently, the application was disposed of as withdrawn, and the interim application was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant may withdraw the Section 378(4) application and file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Gnanasekaran.
- Whether the period during which the withdrawn application remained pending can be counted towards condonation of delay for the forthcoming appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372, 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Criminal appeal
- Section 138 NI Act
- Section 372 CrPC
- Withdrawal of application
- Condonation of delay
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
14 ALP 366-19.DOC
LAXMI
SUBHASH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SONTAKKE
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2026.01.13
15:27:43 +0530
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2019
IN
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2019
M/s. Sulphur Mills Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Kamireddy Murali Reddy & Anr. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sanjeev Sawant a/w. Abhishek Deshmukh and Bhakti Wast for Appellant.
Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar, APP for the State.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 13th JANUARY 2026
P.C.
1. The present Application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
passed in Criminal Case No. 545/SS/2016 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai whereby the Respondents came to be acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant is the original complainant as well as the victim in the present case.
3. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the recent decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. A.
Page 1 of 3
Laxmi
14 ALP 366-19.DOC
Gnanasekaran, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, the Applicant would be
entitled to prefer an Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the present Criminal Application with
liberty to file an Appeal under Section 372 of the Code before the learned Sessions
Court.
4. Reserving the liberty as prayed for, the Applicant is permitted to
withdraw the present Application, in view of the settled legal position as
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Services Pvt.
Ltd. (supra).
5. If such Appeal is filed before the learned Sessions Court within a period
of eight (8) weeks from today, the Applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the
period during which the present Application remained pending, for the purpose of
seeking condonation of delay, if any.
6. If the applicant prefers an Appeal within a period of 8 weeks as
directed, before the learned Sessions Court, considering that the proceedings in
respect of which the Summary Criminal Cases have been preferred are old
proceedings, the Sessions Court may expeditiously decide the Appeal filed before
it.
7. The Registry is directed to verify and return the original certified copy
of the impugned judgment and order to the learned Advocate for the Applicant,
for the purpose of filing the Appeal before the Sessions Court, on submitting a
Page 2 of 3
Laxmi
14 ALP 366-19.DOC
photocopy of the impugned order. Registry shall verify the photocopy and return
the certified copy to the learned Advocate for the Applicant.
8. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid
liberty. In view of disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the above Interim
Application and the same stands disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Laxmi
Checking your session…