Right Of Appeal Is Not A Fundamental Right, Legislature Can Designate Appellate Forum Based On Offence: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental, and thus the legislature can decide the appellate forum based on the subject matter of offences."As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by...
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental, and thus the legislature can decide the appellate forum based on the subject matter of offences.
"As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by the Legislature. The Legislature, depending on the nature of the subject, may consciously provide for a higher forum of appeal in certain classes of cases," the court said.
The Court said that a trial under the Indian Penal Code by a Designated Court constituted under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID), does not amount to a violation of Articles 14 or 21 merely because the appellate remedy lies directly to a higher court. The Court clarified
Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a bail application filed by Milind Satish Sawant, accused of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. The applicant contended that the Designated Court under the MPID Act had no jurisdiction to try IPC offences, since, unlike the Prevention of Corruption Act, the MPID Act contains no express provision empowering such courts to deal with IPC offences. He further argued that allowing the Designated Court to try IPC offences would deprive him of the right to approach the Sessions Court in appeal, thereby violating his rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The prosecution opposed the plea, highlighting that the offences involved a large-scale fraud in which over 127 investors were duped of more than ₹7 crores under the pretext of extraordinary returns.
The Court rejected the applicant's arguments and held that the jurisdiction of the MPID Court should not be read narrowly. Reading Sections 6 and 13 of the MPID Act together, the Court noted that even if a Sessions Court is designated under the MPID Act, it keeps its power to try IPC offences linked with the same fraudulent transaction. The absence of wording identical to the PC Act does not curtail its powers, as the legislative intent of the MPID Act is equally to provide a special mechanism for the protection of depositors.
“… once a Sessions Court is designated as an MPID Court, its competence to try IPC offences connected with the same fraudulent transaction cannot be curtailed merely because the MPID Act does not use the same wording as the PC Act. The absence of a verbatim provision is not an exclusion, and the general powers of the Sessions Court remain intact,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that the argument of loss of one appellate forum was misconceived. The right of appeal is a creation of statute and not a constitutional guarantee. The legislature can provide for a direct appeal to a Higher Court in some cases. This does not violate Articles 14 or 21 but rather ensures speedier justice and balances the rights of depositors with those of the accused.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Designated Court to try IPC offences and rejected the bail application, holding that the scale of fraud, the antecedents of the applicant, and the seriousness of the allegations made out a strong case for continued custody.
Case Title: Milind Satish Sawant v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 1175 of 2025]