Bombay High Court
T.C.I. FINANCE LTD.versusM/S. SALSTAR FOODS AND BEVERAGES. LTD. AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
An appeal pending without prosecution is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The appellants, T.C.I. Finance Ltd., appealed against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 21.12.2001 which dismissed their complaint for want of prosecution and acquitted the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal, filed in 2007, remained pending without any steps taken to serve the respondents. The court observed that the appellants appeared disinterested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the Section 138 claim were examined.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when an appeal remains pending without prosecution by the appellant?
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- cheque bounce
- appeal dismissed
- want of prosecution
- criminal procedure
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA 28-appeal-822-2007.odt
SHERLA Date:
2026.09.07
19:21:00
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 822 OF 2007
T.C.I. Finance Ltd. …Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Salstar Foods & Beverages Ltd.
and Ors. ...Respondents.
…………..
None for the Appellants.
Mrs. S.S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 7.9.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 21.12.2001
passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C.No.214/S/1997.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has
dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellants for want of
prosecution and acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. This appeal is pending since 2007 and no steps are taken to
serve respondent Nos.1 to 3. It appears that the appellants are not
interested in prosecuting the present appeal. The Appeal is
dismissed for want of prosecution.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/1
Checking your session…