Bombay High Court
ATMARAM BUDHOMAL TALREJAversusSUDHAKAR@SUDHIR GANESHRAO PATIL AND ORS
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The appeal is to be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Court and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, with the period spent before the High Court excluded for limitation calculation.
Summary
The appellant, Atmaram Budhomal Talreja, appealed against an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025), he sought to have the appeal transferred to the District and Sessions Court. The High Court, after considering the submission, ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the appropriate District and Sessions Court. The transferred court is directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following the Supreme Court’s observations. Additionally, the High Court directed that the period spent before it be excluded when calculating the limitation period for the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act can be transferred from the High Court to a District and Sessions Court.
- Whether the appeal should be governed by the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran.
- Whether the time spent prosecuting the appeal before the High Court should be excluded for limitation purposes.
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
2026:BHC-AUG:41859
941-Cri-Apeal-135-2007.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2007
ATMARAM BUDHOMAL TALREJA
VERSUS
SUDHAKAR@SUDHIR GANESHRAO PATIL AND ORS
.…
Mr. Pradip S. Jadhav h/f Mr. V. P. Latange, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. P. S. Agrawal h/f Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2
Ms A. S. Mantri, APP for Respondent No.3 - State
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 10 September, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that, the
instant appeal is preferred 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
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 instant appeal be
transferred to the District Court.
2. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 941-Cri-Apeal-135-2007
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 Sessions 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 Sessions 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 appeal before this Court while
calculating the period of limitation.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
2 of 2
Checking your session…