Bombay High Court

NUTECH FEEDS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: N R BORKAR

Holding

An appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant shows no interest in pursuing the appeal.

Summary

Nutech Feeds Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who had set aside a conviction of Pramod N. Patil under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original conviction dated 1 December 2006 was overturned, and the appellant sought to challenge that decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant demonstrated no interest in prosecuting the matter and failed to appear or file necessary papers. The learned judge observed that the appellant’s lack of prosecution warranted dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The decision underscores that an appeal cannot proceed without active participation by the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant shows no interest in pursuing it

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

Criminal appeal
Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act
Dismissal for want of prosecution
Appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                             44-apeal-1033-07.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2007

Nutech Feeds Pvt. Ltd.                                 …Appellant
     V/s.
1.   State of Maharashtra
2.   Pramod N. Patil                                   ...Respondents.

                              …………..
None for the Appellant.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Mangesh Patel for the Respondent No.2.
                              …………..
                            CORAM :        N.R. BORKAR, J.
                            DATE     :     07.07.2026.
P.C. :

1.       This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
14th June 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007.


2.       By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has set aside the order of conviction passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai dated 1 st December
2006        in     C.C.   No.893/S/2002   (Old   C.C.No.380/S/2001)       and
acquitted respondent No.2 herein for the offence punishable under
Section Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.


3.        It appears from the record of appeal that the appellant is not
interested in prosecuting the present appeal. The Appeal is thus
dismissed for want of prosecution.
                                                   [N.R.BORKAR, J.]


Dinesh S. Sherla                          1/1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…