Bombay High Court
M/S. ORGO PHARM CHEMICALSversusPARAMED PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the respondents being untraceable and service not effected.
Summary
M/s. Orgo Pharm Chemicals appealed the acquittal of Paramed Private Ltd. and Mr. M.R. Tiwari by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant argued that the respondents could not be traced and that a communication sent to them was returned unserved with a 'not found' remark. The High Court examined whether the appeal could proceed in the absence of proper service and prosecution of the respondents. Finding that the respondents were not traceable and no prosecution could be effected, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Consequently, the acquittal stood.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the inability to trace respondents on the continuation of a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- acquittal
- appeal dismissed
- service of notice
- want of prosecution
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2026.08.18
22-apeal-1133-05.odt
19:25:36
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2005
M/s. Orgo Pharm Chemicals …Appellant
V/s.
1. Paramed Private Ltd.
2. Mr. M.R. Tiwari
3. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr. Abhishek Kunchikar for the Appellant.
Mr. Y.Y. Dabake, APP for the Respondent/State.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 18.08.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
18th August 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bandra, Mumbai in C.C.No.406/S/2002.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Magistrate has acquitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. It appears from the office remark that the respondent Nos.1
and 2 are not traceable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
communication sent to the appellant is received back unserved
with remark not found on given address. In that view of the
matter, the Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/1
Checking your session…