Bombay High Court
KUMAR PRATHMESH BHARAT GHAYTADAKEversusBHARAT SHABAJI GHAYTADAKE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R N LADDHA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed due to non‑compliance with mandatory procedural requirements and inordinate delay.
Summary
The appellant, a minor represented by his mother, appealed against the acquittal of the original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appeal had been pending since 2009, but the appellant failed to appear, did not pay the required court fees, and showed no diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The High Court noted the procedural lapse and the undue delay. It held that there was no justification to keep the matter pending indefinitely. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal can be dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements such as payment of court fees and undue delay.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- appeal
- procedural default
- court fees
- delay
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA
JOHNSON GONSALVES
JOHNSON Date: 2026.03.25
GONSALVES 23:29:56 +0530
sg 23.apeal484-09.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2009
Kumar Prathmesh Bharat Ghaytadake
Aged - 11 years, Occu - Student,
(Since Minor, through his guardian/mother)
Smt. Sandhya Bharat Ghaytadake,
Aged - 30 years, Occupation - Service,
Residing at - Post - Vasind,
Taluka-Shahapur, District-Thane … Appellant
versus
1. Bharat Shabaji Ghaytadake
Aged - 41 years, Occu - Service,
R/o Mazgaon Tadwadi, St. Meri Road,
Jari-Mari Chawl No.3, Room No.4,
Opp. Mazgaon Court, Byculla (E),
Mumbai. Now Residing at Ashoka
Apartment, A-L-5 type Building No.27,
Flat No.3, Sector-16, Airoli,
Navi-Mumbai
2. The State of Maharashtra … Respondents
----
Mr Siddharth Pitale, h/f. Mr Ajit Pitale, for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Ms MR Tidke, APP, for respondent No.2/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 24 March 2026.
Page 1 of 2
__________________________________________________
24 March 2026
sg 23.apeal484-09.docx
P.C.:
. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to
challenge the acquittal of respondent No.1 herein (original
accused) of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahapur, Thane, in Summary
Criminal Case No.105 of 2004.
2. Today, when the matter was called out for hearing, none
appeared on behalf of the appellant. The record, including the
office note, reveals that the present appeal has been pending
since the year 2009, and despite the lapse of considerable time,
the appellant has failed to comply with the procedural
requirement of payment of requisite Court fees. The continued
non-prosecution of the appeal, coupled with non-compliance of
mandatory procedural requirements, demonstrates a lack of
diligence on the part of the appellant.
3. In such circumstances, this Court finds no justification to
keep the matter pending indefinitely.
4. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 2 of 2
__________________________________________________
24 March 2026
Checking your session…