Bombay High Court

ANKUSH GULABRAO BHAPKARversusPANDURANG SADHASHIV BHAPKAR AND ANR

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

Holding

An appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act may be transferred to the Sessions Court to ensure the appellant can avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Summary

Ankush Gulabrao Bhapkar appealed the acquittal of Pandurang Sadhashiv Bhapkar, who had been found not guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The appellant argued, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, that under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he has a statutory right to appeal an acquittal and that the appeal should be transferred to the Sessions Court for proper jurisdiction. The High Court examined the cited authorities and agreed that there is no impediment to transferring the appeal to the Sessions Court to enable the appellant to avail the statutory remedy. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the appeal records to the Sessions Court and directed the registrar to expedite the process. The appeal was thus disposed of by transfer for further hearing in the Sessions Court.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be transferred to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

Section 138 NI Act
appeal against acquittal
transfer of appeal
Criminal Procedure Code
jurisdiction
sessions court

Judgment

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA
JOHNSON GONSALVES
JOHNSON Date: 2026.03.26
GONSALVES 01:11:22 +0530

sg 27.apeal565-09.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2009

Ankush Gulabrao Bhapkar
Age : 45 years, Occupation: Business,
Indian inhabitant, having his office/shop
at 68/72, Ist Floor, Babu Genu Road,
Mumbai – 400 002 … Appellant

versus

1. Pandurang Sadhashiv Bhapkar
Aged about 41 years
And residing at Post – Karange,
Art Choudharwadi, Tal- Baramati,
Dist – Pune.

2. The State of Maharashtra … Respondents
----
Mr Kishor Bhatia, for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Ms GP Mulekar, APP, for respondent No.2/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 24 March 2026.
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

Page 1 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 27.apeal565-09.docx

Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, vide
judgment and order dated 15 January 2009 passed in CC
No.666/SS/2006.

2. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, submits that the appellant is
vested with the statutory right to prefer an appeal against an
order of acquittal by way of the proviso to Section 372 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is, therefore, urged that
the present appeal be transferred to the Court of competent
jurisdiction, namely, the Sessions Court. According to the
learned Counsel, the transfer is imperative to enable the
appellant to effectively avail the statutory remedy of appeal and
to prevent denial of an appropriate forum. The learned Counsel
also placed reliance on 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;

Page 2 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 27.apeal565-09.docx

(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 submit that there is no impediment
for transferring the present appeal to the concerned Sessions
Court.

3. In light of the submissions made and the decisions cited, it
would be appropriate to transfer the present appeal to the
competent Sessions Court. Such a course would be to enable
the appellant to effectively avail the remedy available in the
statute and prevent denial of an appropriate forum.

4. Given the foregoing, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is
directed to take appropriate steps for the expeditious
transmission of the complete records of the present appeal.
Upon receipt, the Court of Sessions shall proceed to register the
appeal and decide it on its own merits and in accordance with
law. Having regard to the duration for which the matter has
remained pending, it is anticipated that the proceedings will be
taken further with reasonable expedition.

Page 3 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026
sg 27.apeal565-09.docx

5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 4 of 4
__________________________________________________

24 March 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…