Bombay High Court
LAXMIKANT ANILRAO JOSHIversusRAJENDRA ZUMBARLAL KALANTRI
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The High Court ordered the transfer of the appeal to the District and Sessions Court, to be dealt with as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and excluded the period spent on the leave application from the limitation calculation.
Summary
The applicant, Laxmikant Anilrao Joshi, 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 in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025). The High Court, relying on that precedent, ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the appropriate District Court, directing that the matter be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also directed that the time spent prosecuting the leave application be excluded from the limitation period for the appeal. The application was thereafter disposed of.
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 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran.
- Whether the appeal should be governed by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the period spent before the High Court on 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:41212
12-ALP-38-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 38 OF 2021
LAXMIKANT ANILRAO JOSHI
VERSUS
RAJENDRA ZUMBARLAL KALANTRI
.…
Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. R. P. Cheble, Advocate for Respondent
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 07 September, 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 )) 12-ALP-38-2021
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…