The Bombay High Court has set aside an appellate court's order dismissing a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885 on the ground of limitation. The Court restored the appeal and clarified the computation of limitation periods in cheque dishonour cases, emphasizing the importance of precise date tracking in criminal appeals. The judgment also addressed the interplay between statutory limitation and the right to appeal, particularly in cases involving financial offences where procedural compliance often becomes contentious.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The petitioner, Vijay Kashinath Lande, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pimpri, Pune, in S.C.C. No. 1891 of 2022 on 29th May, 2025 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885. The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 20,00,000, with a default imprisonment of one month in case of non-payment. Additionally, Rs. 20,00,000 was awarded as compensation to the complainant, Vinayak Pandharinath Bhongale.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 NI Act on 29th May, 2025.
- The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order on 30th May, 2025 and received it on 18th June, 2025.
- The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2025 on 14th July, 2025, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on 18th September, 2025, on the ground of being barred by limitation.
- The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Procedural History
- 29th May, 2025: Conviction and sentence passed by JMFC, Pimpri, Pune, in S.C.C. No. 1891 of 2022.
- 30th May, 2025: Petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment and order.
- 18th June, 2025: Certified copy received by the petitioner.
- 14th July, 2025: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2025 filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
- 18th September, 2025: Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
- 9th October, 2025: Bombay High Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, suspending the sentence on the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount.
- 21st July, 2026: Present writ petition disposed of by the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate court's order dated 18th September, 2025, restoration of Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2025, and continuation of the interim protection granted by the High Court on 9th October, 2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, particularly when the petitioner had filed the appeal within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the appeal was filed within the limitation period as the certified copy was received on 18th June, 2025, and the appeal was filed on 14th July, 2025. The petitioner contended that the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was erroneous and violated the petitioner's right to appeal under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
For the Respondent
Ms. Madhavi Ayyaipan, counsel for the respondent (complainant), did not contest the limitation issue but sought compliance with the conditions imposed by the High Court's interim order dated 9th October, 2025, particularly the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the timeline of events and the statutory provisions governing the limitation period for filing appeals under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885 and the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy, which is the prescribed period for filing appeals under Section 384(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court observed that the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation was unsustainable, as the petitioner had complied with the statutory requirement of filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Court relied on the principle that limitation periods are to be strictly construed in favour of the appellant, especially in criminal cases where the right to appeal is a statutory right.
"Perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the said Judgment and Order of the learned JMFC, Pimpri, Pune on 30th May, 2025 and the same was received by him on 18th June, 2026 and the Appeal has been filed on 14th July, 2025. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the Appeal."
The Court also clarified that the interim protection granted by the High Court on 9th October, 2025, would continue during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the conditions imposed.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court set aside the appellate court's order dated 18th September, 2025, and restored Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2025 to the file of the learned Appellate Court. The interim protection granted by the High Court on 9th October, 2025, was continued during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent was permitted to file an application under Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for withdrawal of the deposited amount, which the appellate court was directed to consider on its own merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Periods Must Be Computed Precisely
- Practitioners must ensure that appeals under Section 138 NI Act are filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
- The date of receipt of the certified copy is critical and must be accurately recorded in the appeal memo.
Interim Protection Continues During Appeal
- The interim protection granted by the High Court, including suspension of sentence and bail conditions, remains in operation during the pendency of the appeal.
- Compliance with conditions, such as deposit of compensation, must be strictly adhered to.
Appellate Courts Must Exercise Caution in Dismissing Appeals
- Appellate courts should carefully examine the timeline of events before dismissing appeals on the ground of limitation.
- The right to appeal is a statutory right, and dismissal on technical grounds should be avoided unless the delay is inordinate and unexplained.
