Bombay High Court
DIGAMBAR S/O. MANIKRAO YADAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The appeal is to be transferred to the District and Sessions Court and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, with the limitation period excluding the time spent on the leave application.
Summary
The applicant, Digambar Yadav, sought leave to appeal an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025) to argue that the appeal should be filed in the District and Sessions Court. The High Court, after considering the precedent, ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the appropriate District and Sessions Court. It directed the trial court to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to exclude the time spent on the leave application from the limitation period. The application was subsequently disposed off.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act can be transferred to the District and Sessions Court in view of Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran
- Whether the appeal should be governed by the proviso to Section 372 CrPC
- Whether the period spent prosecuting the leave application should be excluded from the limitation period
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 372
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- appeal transfer
- Section 372 CrPC
- limitation period
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
917-ALP-05-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 5 OF 2020
DIGAMBAR S/O. MANIKRAO YADAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
.…
Mr. V. B. Garud, Advocate for Applicant
Ms A. S. Mantri, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
Mr. S. S. Panale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 02 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.
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 917-ALP-05-2020
2. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
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…