1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.418 OF 2009 Hasmukh Kasturchand Shah ..Appellant. vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr A.H.H. Ponda for the Appellant. Mr D.N. Salvi with Mr A.S. Gadkari for the Respondent No.2. Mr A.S. Shitole,A.P.P., for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATE : 25th June,2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard the rival submissions for some time. It is the appeal preferred by the appellant original accused against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai dated 13.3.2009. By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional sessions Judge reversed the order of acquittal passed by the M.M.Court, Mumbai. Initially, the accused - present appellant was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. Admittedly, the said offence is non cognizable and this position has been fairly conceded by the learned Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2 and it is 2 so as per Section 62 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In view of such legal position there could not have been an appeal before the Sessions Court as per the provisions of Section 378 (2) (b) of the Cr.P.C.,as the offences, for which there was acquittal by the M.M.Court were non cognizable in nature. In fact, against such acquittal there should have been a leave petition with appeal before this Court. However, that course was not adopted by the Respondent No.2. As such, the entire impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai is nullity and is required to be set aside. Consequently, the payments directed under the said order and made by the applicant are required to be returned back to him. 2. In the result, Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai is set aside. The payments made in view of the said impugned order shall be returned back to the applicant. 3. Upon request on behalf of the respondents, it is made clear that liberty is always open to the respondents to prefer appeal along with leave petition before this Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the M.M. Court. Needless to mention that such liberty is always subject to law of limitation. A.R.JOSHI,J. 3 4 5