Cambium Boitech Private Ltd -2 Through Its Autho. Signatory Nilkamal Amarnath Za vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

2026:BHC-AS:25327
skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4815 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4822 OF 2025
Cambium Boitech Private Ltd
Through Its Authorized Signatory
Nilkamal Amarnath Za … Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Shivajirao Madhavrao Jadhav … Respondents

Mr. Narayan Gopinath Rokade a/w. Dipak Vyavahare, Siddharth R. Ghodke,
Ramchandra Wagh, Mrunmai K. Rokade and Swapnil Kalokhe, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for Respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Rohan Dilip Kaiche, for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
th
DATE : 10 JUNE, 2026.
JUDGMENT :-
1) Heard Mr. Rokade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.
Kaiche, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and Ms. Yadav,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2) By these writ petitions, the order challenged is rejection of the
application seeking acquittal. The details of the impugned orders in these
writ petitions are set out in tabular form as under :
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

Writ
Petition
Appeal
Compla
Cheque
Cheque
Amount
Fine
Amount
Deposited
7.5% of
Extra
Amount
No.
int No.
No.
Amount
the
Amount
No.
Added
Before
this
Court
Criminal
Writ
Petition
No.
4815/
2025
Crimina
l Appeal
No. 30/
2024
Summa
ry
Crimina
l Case
No. 77/
2018
000606 Rs.
1,13,176/
-
Rs.
1,60,000/-,
out of
₹
which
1,55,000/-
to be paid
to
complainan
t u/s 357(1)
(B) Cr.P.C.
and Rs.
5,000/- to
be paid to
the
Government
towards
prosecution
expenses
u/s 357(1)
(a) Cr.P.C.
Rs.
8,488/-
Rs.
30,000/-
Rs.
1,60,000/
-
Rs.
1,60,000/
-
Criminal
Writ
Petition
No.
4808/
2025
Crimina
l Appeal
No. 31/
2024
Summa
ry
Crimina
l Case
No. 78/
2018
000607 Rs.
1,13,176/
-
Rs.
1,60,000/-,
out of
₹
which
1,55,000/-
to be paid
to
complainan
t u/s 357(1)
(B) Cr.P.C.
and ₹
5,000/- to
be paid to
the
Government
towards
prosecution
expenses
u/s 357(1)
Rs.
8,488/-
Rs.
30,000/-
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

Writ
Petition
Appeal
Compla
Cheque
Cheque
Amount
Fine
Amount
Deposited
7.5% of
Extra
Amount
No.
int No.
No.
Amount
the
Amount
No.
Added
Before
this
Court
(a) Cr.P.C.
Criminal
Writ
Petition
No.
4822/
2025
Crimina
l Appeal
No. 32/
2024
Summa
ry
Crimina
l Case
No. 79/
2018
000608 Rs.
1,13,176/
-
Rs.
1,60,000/-,
out of
which Rs.
1,55,000/-
to be paid
to
complainan
t u/s 357(1)
(B) Cr.P.C.
and
Rs.5,000/-
to be paid
to the
Government
towards
prosecution
expenses
u/s 357(1)
(a) Cr.P.C.
Rs.
8,488/-
Rs.
30,000/-
Rs.
1,60,000/
-
3) It is the submission of Mr. Rokade, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner that the cheque amount involved in each of these petitions is
Rs.1,13,176/-. He submits that the Petitioner has already deposited an
amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in each of the matters before the learned Appellate
Court. In addition thereto, the Petitioner is willing to deposit a further sum
of Rs. 30,000/- in each of the appeals pending before the learned Appellate
Court. He submits that the Petitioner has no objection for withdrawal of
said amount by Respondent No. 2. He further submits that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge observed that the amount offered by the
3/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

Petitioner was not sufficient to compensate the complainant and, since the
complainant was not willing to accept the said amount, the applications
came to be rejected.
4) Mr. Rokade, learned counsel pointed out the judgment of the
1
Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Another and, in
particular, paragraphs 38 and 39 thereof. He submitted that this Court may
set aside the impugned order and remand the applications to the learned
Appellate Court for reconsideration for exercising powers under Section
255(2) and/or Section 255(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(“ Code” ), or Section 278 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further
submitted that the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 be given to the accused.
5) On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Kaiche, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 2 that as per Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1988 (“ NI Act ”), once the person is found to have
committed an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, he shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with
fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. He
submits that as the fine amount can extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, the Petitioner is bound to pay twice the amount of the cheque and
thereafter only, the order can be passed and therefore, no interference in
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069
4/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

the impugned orders is warranted.
6) Before dealing with the submissions of both learned counsel, it is
necessary to set out certain relevant factual aspects :
i. The admitted position is that the Petitioner had been
purchasing diesel from Respondent No. 2 from time to time
and had been making payments towards the said transactions
on a regular basis. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has
placed on record a chart setting out the particulars of the
transactions between the parties. The same is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
Date Particulars of Events
Petitioner purchased diesel from
24/03/2017 Respondent No.2 and made part payment
of Rs.1,25,981/-.
Payment of Rs.1,45,605/- made by
06/04/2017
Petitioner to Respondent No.2.
Payment of Rs.49,000/- made by
19/05/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.1,56,205/- made by
21/05/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made by
22/05/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.1,56,205/- made by
29/05/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made by
01/06/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.75,943/- made by
09/06/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.80,000/- made by
16/06/2017
Petitioner.
5/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

Date Particulars of Events
Payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made by
29/06/2017
Petitioner.
Payment of Rs.1,20,000/- made by
12/07/2017
Petitioner.
th
ii. The Petitioner issued three cheques dated 11 September
th th
2017, 18 September 2017 and 30 September 2017 towards
payment for the purchase of diesel. Each of the said cheques
was for an amount of Rs. 1,13,176/-. Respondent No. 2
presented the said cheques for encashment through IDBI Bank,
th
Pimpalgaon, on 28 November 2017. However, all three
th
cheques came to be dishonoured on 30 November 2017 with
the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.
iii. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 issued a statutory notice
th
dated 27 December 2017 to the Petitioner. The said notice
was duly served upon the Petitioner. In response thereto, the
Petitioner denied his liability and alleged misuse of the cheques
in question.
iv. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 instituted three separate
complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, particulars
whereof are set out in the chart reproduced hereinabove.
v. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pimpalgaon, convicted the Petitioner in
all the three cases and sentenced him to undergo simple
6/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

imprisonment for a period of three months. The Petitioner was
also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- in each case, out of
which Rs. 1,55,000/- was directed to be paid to Respondent
No. 2 as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
vi. The Petitioner preferred three separate appeals against the
th
said judgment and order dated 6 May 2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpalgaon, before the
th
learned Sessions Judge, Niphad. By an order dated 6 June
2024, the learned Sessions Judge, Niphad, suspended the
sentence under Section 389 of the Code, subject to the
condition that the Petitioner deposit 20% of the cheque
amount within a period of one month. In compliance with the
said order, the Petitioner deposited 20% of the cheque amount
th
by way of demand draft on 28 June 2024.
th
vii. Thereafter, on 30 May 2025, the Petitioner filed a pursis
in the said appeals expressing his willingness to pay an amount
of Rs. 1,32,364/-, being the cheque amount involved in each of
the three appeals and seeking acceptance thereof.
th
viii. Subsequently, on 18 July 2025, the Petitioner filed an
application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Niphad, stating that he was willing to pay a sum of Rs.
1,60,000/- and that the said amount had already been
7/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

deposited before the learned Appellate Court. On that basis,
the Petitioner prayed for acquittal.
ix. The said applications filed in each of the Appeals came to
th
be rejected by the impugned order dated 14 August 2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad.
7) In view of the above factual aspects, Mr. Rokade, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner submits that although the application filed by
the Petitioner sought acquittal, the learned Appellate Court should have
considered the same in the light of paragraph 38 of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra).
8) Before considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari
(supra), it is also necessary to note that the Supreme Court, in Damodar S.
2
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. has laid down guidelines governing the
compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The paragraphs
Nos. 21 and 22 of the said decision are relevant which read as under :
21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque
bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this
Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs
on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was
submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as
a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and
easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated,
gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling
the cases for years. An application for compounding made after
2 (2010) 5 SCC 663
8/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

several years not only results in the system being burdened but
the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of
this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be
followed:
THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be
suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could
make an application for compounding of the offences at the first
or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is
made, compounding may be allowed by the court without
imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for
compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent
stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that
the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount
to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal
Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made
before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal,
such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the
accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before
the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the
cheque amount.
22. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in
accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the
Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the court
9/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of
compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a
Magistrate's Court or a Court of Session, such costs should be
deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise,
costs imposed in connection with composition before the High
Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services
Authority and those imposed in connection with composition
before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the
National Legal Services Authority.
( Emphasis added )
9) The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S.
Prabhu (supra) subsequently came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra). The Supreme Court observed that,
in spite of issuance of the guidelines issued in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra),
a large number of cheque dishonour cases continued to remain pending and
that interest rates had substantially fallen over the years. In view thereof,
the Supreme Court considered it appropriate to revisit and modify the said
guidelines. The Supreme Court further considered situations where the
complainant was not willing to consent to compounding of the offence and
modified the earlier guidelines. Paragraph Nos. 38 and 39 of the judgment
in Sanjabij Tari (supra), are relevant in the present case, which read as
under :
38 Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending
and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view
10/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

that it is time to ‘revisit and tweak the guidelines’. Accordingly, the
aforesaid guidelines of compounding are modified as under:-
(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before
recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then
the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence
without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.
(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque
amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to
the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the
Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on
payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the
Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the
Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is
made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in
Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the
offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of
the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before
this Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the
cheque amount
39. This Court is of the view that if the Accused is willing to
pay in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the Court may
suggest to the parties to go for compounding. If for any reason,
the financial institutions/complainant asks for payment other
than the cheque amount or settlement of entire loan or other
outstanding dues, then the Magistrate may suggest to the
Accused to plead guilty and exercise the power under Section
255(2) and/or 255(3) of the Cr.P.C . or 278 of the BNSS, 2023
and/or give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act,
11/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

1958 to the Accused.
( Emphasis added )
10) Thus, as per the aforesaid guidelines, the Supreme Court has, inter
alia , directed that where the cheque amount is paid before the Sessions
Court or the High Court in appeal or revision, the concerned Court may
permit compounding of the offence subject to the accused paying costs
equivalent to 7.5% of the cheque amount. The Supreme Court has further
directed that, in a case where the complainant is not willing to consent to
compounding, the Magistrate may suggest to the accused to plead guilty
and thereafter exercise powers under Section 255(2) and/or Section 255(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 278 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and/or extend the benefit of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused.
11) Though the aforesaid directions are issued to the Magistrate, the
same would equally apply at the appellate stage. This is because the
guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra) govern
compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, including before
the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, the Revisional Court and even the
Supreme Court and also contemplates exercise of powers under Section
255(2) and/or Section 255(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or
Section 278 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and/or
12/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

directions issued to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 to the accused. All these powers can be exercised even at the
Appellate Stage. Therefore, the directions contained in paragraph 39 of the
judgment in Sanjabij Tari (supra) are squarely applicable to proceedings
pending before the Learned Appellate Court.
12) In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petitions are disposed
of by passing the following order:
th
i. The impugned orders dated 14 August 2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, rejecting the
applications filed by the Petitioner seeking acquittal in the
respective criminal appeals, are quashed and set aside. The
said applications are restored to the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, for fresh consideration.
ii. In addition to the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- already
deposited by the Petitioner in each of the criminal appeals,
the Petitioner shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- in
each of the said appeals within a period of eight weeks from
today.
iii. The learned Appellate Court shall consider and decide
the applications filed by the Petitioner in the light of the
directions contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the
13/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::

skt 913-CR.WP-4815-2025==.doc

Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra) after the deposit of
said additional amount of Rs.30,000/- in each of the Appeals.
iv. In the event the learned Appellate Court passes an order
in terms of paragraph 39 of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra), it shall also consider directing
payment of costs to the District Legal Services Authority and
payment of the balance amount to Respondent No. 2, in
accordance with law.
v. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept
open.
13) All these Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
14/14
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2026 19:41:07 :::