Bombay High Court

JAYANTILAL KASTURCHAND GULECHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

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

Holding

A victim in a Section 138 case is entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to challenge an acquittal, and the appeal must be transferred to the Sessions Court.

Summary

Jayantilal Gulecha appealed against the acquittal of Punamchand Mahajan by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satana, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant argued that, pursuant to the proviso of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a victim is entitled to challenge an acquittal before the Sessions Court. The High Court examined this statutory right and considered several precedents supporting the transfer of such appeals to the Sessions Court. It held that the victim’s right under Section 372 is applicable in Section 138 cases. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the appeal record to the competent Sessions Court for adjudication on its merits and directed an expeditious disposal. The appeal was thus disposed of with the transfer order.

Issues considered

Whether a victim in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can invoke the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge an acquittal before the Sessions Court.
Whether the High Court can transfer the appeal to the Sessions Court for determination of the merits.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

Section 138 NI Act
Section 372 CrPC
victim's right
appeal against acquittal
transfer of appeal
criminal procedure
negotiable instruments
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA
JOHNSON GONSALVES
JOHNSON Date: 2026.03.26
GONSALVES 01:11:17 +0530

sg 32.apeal1450-11.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.1450 of 2011

Jayantilal Kasturchand Gulecha,
Adult, Age 30 years,
residing at Lohoner,
Taluka-Devla,
Dist-Nashik … Appellant

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra
Writ to be served at the office
of Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Bombay.

2. Punamchand Popatrao Mahajan
Indian Inhabitant, Adult,
Residing Near Government
Hospital, Behind the Hospital
of Dr Mazgaonkar Satana,
Taluka-Bauglan, Dist-Nashik. … Respondents
----
None for the appellant.
Ms MR Tidke, APP, for respondent No.1/ State.
Mr NR Bubna, for respondent No.2.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 24 March 2026.
P.C.:

. The present appeal calls into question the judgment and

Page 1 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 32.apeal1450-11.docx

order dated 17 January 2011 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Satana, Nashik, in SCC No.104 of
2007, whereby respondent No.2 herein/original accused came
to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.1/ State, drawing attention to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A.
Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, submitted that the
proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, confers a statutory right upon the appellant to assail an
order of acquittal before the Sessions Court. It was further
urged that in order to enable it to exercise its right and to
ensure access to a proper adjudicatory forum, the present
appeal be transferred to the competent Sessions Court. Reliance
is also placed upon the decisions passed in (i) Kotak Mahindra
Finance Ltd vs Nobiletto Finlease & Investments, Criminal
Appeal No. 645 of 2006 dated 31 October 2005, Delhi High
Court; (ii)Pooja Trading Company vs Harishchandra
Manjrekar, Criminal Appeal No.1016 of 2006 dated 13
October 2025, Bombay High Court; (iii) Shivputra Arwat vs
Sangappa Bhasgikar, Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2008 dated
8 October 2025, Bombay High Court; (iv)Salimshah Haji

Page 2 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 32.apeal1450-11.docx

Shakurshan vs Syd. Javdali Syd Anwarali, Criminal Appeal No.
167 of 2006 dated 15 October 2025, Bombay High Court at
Aurangabad; (v)Pankaj Mehta vs Vishal Hundar, 2026 SCC
OnLine MP 800; (vi)Sunil Kumar vs Daljit Kaur,
2025:PHHC:092344; and (vii)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. Having considered the submissions and the decisions cited
above, it is clear that a victim, including a complainant in
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, is entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 372 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to challenge an
acquittal before the Sessions Court. In light of this, it is
considered appropriate that the present appeal be transferred to
the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction so as to enable the
appellant to pursue the statutory remedy before the proper
forum.

4. Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to
take necessary steps to transfer the entire record of the present
appeal to the concerned Sessions Court. Upon receipt, the
Sessions Court shall register the appeal and decide the same on

Page 3 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 32.apeal1450-11.docx

its own merits in accordance with the law. Given the long
pendency of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge is requested
to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

5. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 4 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…