Bombay High Court
Jatin Lalit Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 April, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:18366
Mamta Kale 59-apeal-318-2011.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2011
Jatin Lalit Shah
Age 35 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at : 450-A, Palai,
Lalit Kunj, 4th Floor, Flat No.402,
Dr. Ambedkar Road, King Circle,
Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019.
(Presently at E/109, 'Juneja',
MAMTA
AMAR
KALE
2nd Floor, Masjid Moth, Greater
Digitally signed by
Kailash Part III, New Delhi -110 048. ... Appellant
MAMTA AMAR
KALE
Date: 2026.04.18
20:34:19 +0530
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Pramod Parekh
(Proprietor of Yasashvi Gems,
402/4, Saraswat Building,
Andheri Kurla Link Road,
J. B. Nagar, Andheri (East),
Mumbai. ... Respondents
----
Mr Nitin Karhale h/f Senior Advocate Mr Aabad Ponda, for the
Appellant.
Ms Anagha A Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 18 April 2026 P.C.:
. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order Page 1 of 3 __________________________________________________ 18 April 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:47:27 ::: Mamta Kale 59-apeal-318-2011.docx dated 4 January 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane, in S.C.C. No.5386 of 2008, whereby respondent No.2 herein was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, submits that by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has a statutory right to challenge an acquittal. On this basis, it is asserted that the present appeal be transferred to the concerned trial Court so that the appellant can effectively exercise this right and is not deprived of a proper adjudicatory forum. Reliance is also placed on the decisions 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; (iv)Salimshah Haji Shakurshan vs Syd. Javdali Syd Anwarali, Criminal Appeal No. Page 2 of 3 __________________________________________________ 18 April 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:47:27 ::: Mamta Kale 59-apeal-318-2011.docx 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 contend that no legal impediment exist in directing transfer of the appeal to the concerned trial Court, which is the competent forum.
3. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer the present appeal to the concerned trial Court, having jurisdiction.
4. Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the entire record and proceedings of the present appeal to the concerned trial Court. Upon receipt, the learned trial Court shall register the appeal and proceed to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 3 of 3 __________________________________________________ 18 April 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:47:27 :::