VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1565 OF 2008 Kamalaksha L. Prabhu ... Petitioner Vs. S. G. Mayekar & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S. L. Prabhu, for the Petitioner. Dr F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2008. PC :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge, refusing to grant leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal, passed in favour of the accused, in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. We are of the view that the Writ Petition does not lie against the order of Single Judge of this Court passed in its appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an appeal can be filed in a civil matter, there cannot - 2 - be any reason for not having the same remedy in a criminal matter. 3. It is well settled principle in law that the right to file an appeal is a statutory right. Unless a statute gives a right to file an appeal, no appeals can be entertained. There are some cases decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which are appelable by way of an intra-court appeal, in terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Bombay High Court. The present case does not fall within Clause 15 and even as appeal, it is not maintainable. 4. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are convinced that this jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court twice in the same matter. We cannot exercise jurisdiction over a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in criminal matter in exercise of a criminal appellate jurisdiction. With this observation as we cannot entertain this writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] - 3 - [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]