Bombay High Court

TPI INDIA LIMITEDversusJ. DIWAKAR AND ORS

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

A victim of a Section 138 NI Act offence is entitled to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and the appeal may be transferred to a Sessions Court for proper adjudication.

Summary

The appeal was filed by TPI India Limited challenging the acquittal of J. Diwakar and his firm Anil Enterprises by a Special Metropolitan Magistrate in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The State of Maharashtra, through its counsel, argued that the victim of a Section 138 offence has a statutory right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. Relying on several High Court precedents, the State contended that there was no legal impediment to transferring the appeal to a Sessions Court, which is the appropriate forum for such matters. The Bombay High Court examined these submissions and concluded that the appeal should indeed be transferred to the competent Sessions Court for adjudication on its merits. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the entire appeal record to the Sessions Court and disposed of the appeal in those terms.

Issues considered

Whether a victim of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has a statutory right to appeal an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
Whether the appeal can be transferred from the High Court to a Sessions Court despite the original jurisdiction of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

Section 138 NI Act
appeal against acquittal
Section 372 Cr.P.C
transfer of appeal
jurisdiction
criminal procedure

Judgment

Mamta Kale 43-apeal-1518-2011.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2011
TPI India Limited
a Public Limited Company, duly
incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its Registered
Office at Plot No.G-1/2, MIDC Area,
Boisar, District – Thane and Head
Office at 102, Atlanta, 10th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021
through its duly authorized officer
Shri Perinchery Radha Mohan … Appellant
versus
1. J Diwakar
An adult, Indian Inhabitant of
Gadag, the sole proprietor of
M/s Anil Enterprises, having its’
address at Station Road,
Gadag – 582 101, District – Dharwad(K.S.)

2. M/s Anil Enterprises
a sole proprietary concern of
J. Diwakar, having its’ address
Digitally

at Station Road, Gadag – 582 101.
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.04.06
14:35:42
+0530

Distrct – Dharwad (K.S.)

3. State of Maharashtra …Respondents
----
None for the Appellant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the Respondent / State.
Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________

2 April 2026
Mamta Kale 43-apeal-1518-2011.docx

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 2 April 2026
P.C.:
. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order
dated 11 November 2009, passed by the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, in C.C. No.2360/SS/2005,
whereby respondents No.1 and 2 herein were acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The learned APP representing respondent No.3 / State,
has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1320, to submit that a victim of an offence,
including a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act, has
the statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of
acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. It is
further urged that, in order to safeguard the appellant’s right to
avail of proper forum for such statutory remedy, transfer of the
present appeal is warranted. Reliance is also placed on (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

Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________

2 April 2026
Mamta Kale 43-apeal-1518-2011.docx

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 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 contend that no legal impediment
exist in directing transfer of the appeal to the Court of Sessions,
which is competent forum.

3. Having considered the submission advanced, this Court
deems it appropriate to transfer the present appeal to the Court
of Sessions having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the learned
Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forthwith transmit the entire
record and proceedings of the appeal to the concerned Sessions
Court. Upon receipt, the learned Sessions Court shall register
the appeal and decide it on its own merits and in accordance
with the law expeditiously.

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

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________

2 April 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…