Bombay High Court
KESHAVRAO ROHIDASRAO TELBHAREversusBALASAHEB MADHAVRAO BHAROSE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The appeal is to be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Court and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, with the period spent before the High Court excluded for limitation purposes.
Summary
The appellant Keshavrao Rohidasrao Telbhare appealed against an order of acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025), he sought to have the appeal transferred from the High Court to the appropriate District and Sessions Court. The High Court, after considering the precedent, ordered the transfer and directed the Registrar to effect it. The Sessions Court to which the matter is transferred is to register the appeal, issue notices, and proceed in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the appeal be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the period spent before the High Court be excluded when calculating the limitation period.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be transferred from the High Court to a District and Sessions Court in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran.
- Whether the time spent prosecuting the appeal before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of limitation under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 372
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- appeal transfer
- High Court
- District and Sessions Court
- limitation period
- Section 372 CrPC
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42077
924-Cri-Apeal-745-2006.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2006
KESHAVRAO ROHIDASRAO TELBHARE
VERSUS
BALASAHEB MADHAVRAO BHAROSE AND ANR
.…
Mr. S. B. Ghute, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Anand Dale h/f Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for Respondent No.2 – State
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 11 September, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that, the
instant appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal from offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He prays that,
now, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran Etc. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC
1320], he would contest the appeal before learned District and
Sessions Court and hence urges that, the instant appeal be
transferred to the District Court.
2. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 924-Cri-Apeal-745-2006
ORDER
I. The present proceedings be transferred to the concerned
District and Sessions Court. Learned Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to take further necessary action for transferring
this matter to the concerned District and Sessions Court,
immediately.
II. The learned Sessions Court to whom this matter will be
assigned, after registering it, shall issue notice to the
concerned parties, and thereafter, proceed further with the
matter in accordance with law.
III. The concerned Sessions Court shall treat this matter as
appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Celestium Financial (supra).
IV. Learned District and Sessions Judge to exclude the period
spent in prosecuting instant appeal before this Court while
calculating the period of limitation.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
2 of 2
Checking your session…