Bombay High Court
M/A. MULTI MODAL FREIGHT SYSTEM PVT LTDversusYOGESH MORDANI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R N LADDHA
Holding
The appeal is transferred to the Sessions Court, which has jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the acquittal.
Summary
The appellant, M/s Multi Modal Freight System Pvt Ltd, challenged the acquittal of Yogesh Mordani by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant argued that, under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has a statutory right to contest the acquittal and that the appeal should be heard by a Sessions Court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran and several High Court precedents, the appellant sought a transfer of the appeal to a competent forum. The Bombay High Court examined these submissions and held that no legal impediment existed to transferring the appeal to the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the entire appeal record to the Sessions Court for registration and adjudication on its merits.
Issues considered
- The appellant’s statutory right to challenge an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC
- Whether the appeal can be transferred from the High Court to a Sessions Court for proper adjudication
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- Acquittal
- Appeal transfer
- Sessions Court
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC
- Criminal procedure
- Statutory right to challenge acquittal
Judgment
Mamta Kale 78-apeal-1644-2011.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 2011
M/s Multi Modal Freight System Pvt Ltd.
Off-B/8, Bhomi Vidyadayani,
Om Nagar, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 099. … Appellant
versus
1. Yogesh Mordani
MAMTA
Solomio Techno Flex 2,
AMAR
KALE
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR
KALE
Near MTNL, Opp. Grand
Date: 2026.04.18
20:34:18 +0530
Sarovar Hotel, Goregaon (West),
Mumbai.
2. State of Maharashtra … Respondents
----
Ms Harshada Morey h/f Mr Shailesh Kantharia, for the
Appellant.
Mr V A Kulkarni, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 18 April 2026
P.C.:
. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order
dated 10 August 2011, passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, in CC
No.13595/SS/2009, whereby respondent No.1 herein was
Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________
18 April 2026
Mamta Kale 78-apeal-1644-2011.docx
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1320, submits that by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has a
statutory right to challenge an acquittal. On this basis, it is
asserted that the present appeal be transferred to the Court of
Sessions Court so that the appellant can effectively exercise this
right and is not deprived of a proper adjudicatory forum.
Reliance is also placed on the decisions 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
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,
Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________
18 April 2026
Mamta Kale 78-apeal-1644-2011.docx
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 the competent forum.
3. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court
deems it appropriate to transfer the present appeal to the Court
of Sessions, having jurisdiction.
4. Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to
transmit the entire record and proceedings of the present
appeal to the concerned Sessions Court. Upon receipt, the
learned Sessions Court shall register the appeal and proceed to
decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law,
expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________
18 April 2026
Checking your session…