Right Of Appeal Is Not A Fundamental Right, Legislature Can Designate Appellate Forum Based On Offence: Bombay High Court

“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 courtroom mentioned.

The Court mentioned {that a} trial below the Indian Penal Code by a Designated Court constituted below the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID), doesn’t quantity to a violation of Articles 14 or 21 merely as a result of the appellate treatment lies on to the next courtroom. The Court clarified

Justice Amit Borkar was listening to a bail utility filed by Milind Satish Sawant, accused of offences below Sections 406, 409, 420 learn 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 below the MPID Act had no jurisdiction to attempt IPC offences, since, in contrast to the Prevention of Corruption Act, the MPID Act incorporates no specific provision empowering such courts to cope with IPC offences. He additional argued that permitting the Designated Court to attempt IPC offences would deprive him of the appropriate to method the Sessions Court in enchantment, thereby violating his rights below Articles 14 and 21.

The prosecution opposed the plea, highlighting that the offences concerned a large-scale fraud by which over 127 buyers have been duped of greater than ₹7 crores below the pretext of extraordinary returns.

The Court rejected the applicant’s arguments and held that the jurisdiction of the MPID Court shouldn’t be learn narrowly. Reading Sections 6 and 13 of the MPID Act collectively, the Court famous that even when a Sessions Court is designated below the MPID Act, it retains its energy to attempt IPC offences linked with the identical fraudulent transaction. The absence of wording an identical to the PC Act doesn’t curtail its powers, because the legislative intent of the MPID Act is equally to offer a particular mechanism for the safety 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 noticed.

The Court additional held that the argument of lack of one appellate discussion board was misconceived. The proper of enchantment is a creation of statute and never a constitutional assure. The legislature can present for a direct enchantment to a Higher Court in some instances. This doesn’t violate Articles 14 or 21 however slightly ensures speedier justice and balances the rights of depositors with these of the accused.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the problem to the jurisdiction of the Designated Court to attempt IPC offences and rejected the bail utility, holding that the size of fraud, the antecedents of the applicant, and the seriousness of the allegations made out a powerful case for continued custody.

Case Title: Milind Satish Sawant v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 1175 of 2025]