Bombay High Court

HARESH RAMCHANDRA JADHAVversusWAMAN NAMDEV GAIKWAD AND ANR.

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

The High Court held that the appeal may be transferred to the competent Sessions Court as there is no legal impediment and the appellant’s right to a proper forum must be protected.

Summary

Haresh Ramchandra Jadhav appealed against the acquittal of Waman Namdev Gaikwad by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No parties appeared before the High Court, and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the appeal should be transferred to the Sessions Court to ensure a proper adjudicatory forum for the appellant. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran and several other precedents, finding no legal impediment to such a transfer. Consequently, the High Court ordered the complete case record to be sent to the competent Sessions Court for registration and merits‑determination. The appeal was thus disposed of by directing its transfer, with a direction for the Sessions Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be transferred from the High Court to the Sessions Court.
Whether the appellant’s right to a proper adjudicatory forum is denied if the appeal remains in the High Court.

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

Section 138 NI Act
appeal transfer
jurisdiction
high court
sessions court
criminal procedure

Judgment

Mamta Kale 22-apeal-129-2009.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2009
Haresh Ramchandra Jadhav
Age 28 years, Occupation: Business,
Residing at B.No.1081, Room No.14,
Near Dharamdas Darbar, O.T. Section,
Ulhasnagar -3, District – Thane. … Appellant
versus
1. Waman Namdev Gaikwad
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.03.24
Age 50 years, Occupation – Service,
18:17:09
+0530

Residing at J Type, 59/5,
Ordance Estate, Ambernath (West),
Ambernath, District – Thane.

2. The State of Maharashtra …Respondents
----

None for the Appellant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Ms G P Mulekar, APP, for Respondent No.2 / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 24 March 2026
P.C.:
. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order
dated 4 April 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ulhasnagar, in S.C.C. No.27 of 2005, whereby

Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
Mamta Kale 22-apeal-129-2009.docx

respondent No.1 herein was acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, none
appeared for the appellant and respondent No.1. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.2/
State, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, submits that the present appeal
may be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court so that the
appellant can effectively exercise his right and is not deprived
of a proper adjudicatory forum. Reliance is also placed on
Pankaj Mehta vs Vishal Hundar, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 800;
Sunil Kumar vs Daljit Kaur, 2025:PHHC:092344; and Raj
Kumar vs Rajender, 2025:PHHC:079740 to submit that there
is no impediment for transferring the present appeal to the
concerned Sessions Court.

3. Considering the submissions and the decisions cited
above, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer the appeal to
the competent Sessions Court so that appellant may pursue the
statutory remedy without being denied an appropriate forum.
Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to

Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
Mamta Kale 22-apeal-129-2009.docx

ensure prompt transmission of the entire record of the case to
the concerned Sessions Court. Upon receipt, the Sessions Court
shall register the appeal and proceed to decide it on its own
merits and in accordance with law. Given the prolonged
pendency of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge is requested
to dispose of the proceedings at the earliest.

4. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…