Bombay High Court
ARUNA YUVRAJ SONWANEversusSHIVPRASAD DEVKISAN BAJAJ
- Disposal
- Transfer to other court
Holding
The appeal is transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Court and shall be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, with the period spent in the High Court excluded for limitation calculation.
Summary
The appellant Aruna Yuvraj Sonwane appealed against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025), the appellant sought transfer of the appeal to the District and Sessions Court. The High Court, after considering the precedent, ordered the matter to be transferred to the appropriate District Court. The transferred appeal is to be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also directed that the period spent before the High Court be excluded when calculating the limitation period. The Sessions Court is instructed to register the appeal, issue notices, and proceed in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act can be transferred from the High Court to a District and Sessions Court following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran.
- Whether the appeal should be governed by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the time spent prosecuting the appeal before the High Court should be excluded for limitation purposes.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 372
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- appeal transfer
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 372 proviso
- limitation period
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45915
949-Cri-Apeal-811-2006.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
949 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2006
ARUNA YUVRAJ SONWANE
VERSUS
SHIVPRASAD DEVKISAN BAJAJ
.…
Mr. F. N. Shaikh h/f Mr. J. R. Shaikh, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. J. R. Patil, APP for Respondent
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 01 October, 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 )) 949-Cri-Apeal-811-2006
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…