Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 633
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4728 of 2023)
RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.05.06
17:33:39 IST
Reason:
1
3. The accused-appellant has approached this Court,
through this appeal by special leave, assailing the
th
judgment dated 7 January, 2023, passed by the High
1
Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in Criminal
Appeal No. 53 of 2017 whereby the High Court quashed
th
and set aside the judgment dated 6 February 2017,
passed by the First Appellate Court being the Court of
2
Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao in Criminal Case
No. 29/NI/2014. The First Appellate Court had allowed
the Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2016 filed by the accused-
th
appellant against the conviction order dated 5 August,
2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
3
Class, Canacona , and acquitted him while setting aside
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’.
3 3
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court.’
2
his conviction for the offence punishable under Section
4
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 as
recorded by the trial Court.
4. While reversing the acquittal of the accused-
appellant, the High Court restored the judgment dated
th
5 August, 2016, passed by the trial Court in Criminal
Case No. 29/NI/2014, convicting the accused-appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI
Act and directing that he shall pay compensation to the
tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent
5
under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
towards the cheque amount and further compensation
to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of cost and, in
default, shall undergo sentence of simple imprisonment
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘NI Act’.
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
3
for a period of three months. In addition, the accused-
appellant was directed to undergo sentence till the
rising of the Court.
5. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal,
preferred by the accused-appellant, holding that the
complainant-respondent was indulging in money
lending activities, without acquiring a license and was
thereby acting in breach of the provisions of the Goa
6
Money-Lenders Act, 2001 and hence, he was precluded
from prosecuting the accused-appellant under NI Act.
6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondent-complainant despite service of notice.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-
appellant, urged that the accused-appellant had
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘Goa Act’.
4
returned the entire amount of loan taken from the
complainant-respondent between January 2012 to July
2013. He further submitted that since the accused-
appellant has returned the amount of the cheque to the
complainant-respondent with interest payable
thereupon, he is entitled to be acquitted by
compounding the offence.
8. Upon having considered the entirety of the facts
and circumstances as emerging from the record, we find
that the High Court, while reversing the acquittal of the
accused-appellant, as recorded by the First Appellate
Court, did not advert to the important issue regarding
applicability of the Goa Act which provided a valid
defense available to the accused-appellant. Thus,
apparently, the judgment rendered by the High Court
does not stand to scrutiny.
5
9. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the
cheque amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the
compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, as
imposed by the trial Court, has already been paid by the
accused-appellant.
10. In view of the facts noted above and considering
the aspect that the accused-appellant has already paid
the cheque amount and the fine of Rs. 30,000/-
imposed by the trial Court, we hereby, exercise our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to
compound the offence and acquit the accused-appellant
of the accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act
subject to the condition that the entire amount of
Rs.2,30,000/- deposited by the accused-appellant shall
be paid to the complainant-respondent, if the same has
not been paid till date.
6
11. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in
these terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2025.
7
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4728 of 2023)
RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.05.06
17:33:39 IST
Reason:
1
3. The accused-appellant has approached this Court,
through this appeal by special leave, assailing the
th
judgment dated 7 January, 2023, passed by the High
1
Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in Criminal
Appeal No. 53 of 2017 whereby the High Court quashed
th
and set aside the judgment dated 6 February 2017,
passed by the First Appellate Court being the Court of
2
Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao in Criminal Case
No. 29/NI/2014. The First Appellate Court had allowed
the Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2016 filed by the accused-
th
appellant against the conviction order dated 5 August,
2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
3
Class, Canacona , and acquitted him while setting aside
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’.
3 3
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court.’
2
his conviction for the offence punishable under Section
4
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 as
recorded by the trial Court.
4. While reversing the acquittal of the accused-
appellant, the High Court restored the judgment dated
th
5 August, 2016, passed by the trial Court in Criminal
Case No. 29/NI/2014, convicting the accused-appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI
Act and directing that he shall pay compensation to the
tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent
5
under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
towards the cheque amount and further compensation
to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of cost and, in
default, shall undergo sentence of simple imprisonment
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘NI Act’.
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
3
for a period of three months. In addition, the accused-
appellant was directed to undergo sentence till the
rising of the Court.
5. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal,
preferred by the accused-appellant, holding that the
complainant-respondent was indulging in money
lending activities, without acquiring a license and was
thereby acting in breach of the provisions of the Goa
6
Money-Lenders Act, 2001 and hence, he was precluded
from prosecuting the accused-appellant under NI Act.
6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondent-complainant despite service of notice.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-
appellant, urged that the accused-appellant had
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘Goa Act’.
4
returned the entire amount of loan taken from the
complainant-respondent between January 2012 to July
2013. He further submitted that since the accused-
appellant has returned the amount of the cheque to the
complainant-respondent with interest payable
thereupon, he is entitled to be acquitted by
compounding the offence.
8. Upon having considered the entirety of the facts
and circumstances as emerging from the record, we find
that the High Court, while reversing the acquittal of the
accused-appellant, as recorded by the First Appellate
Court, did not advert to the important issue regarding
applicability of the Goa Act which provided a valid
defense available to the accused-appellant. Thus,
apparently, the judgment rendered by the High Court
does not stand to scrutiny.
5
9. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the
cheque amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the
compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, as
imposed by the trial Court, has already been paid by the
accused-appellant.
10. In view of the facts noted above and considering
the aspect that the accused-appellant has already paid
the cheque amount and the fine of Rs. 30,000/-
imposed by the trial Court, we hereby, exercise our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to
compound the offence and acquit the accused-appellant
of the accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act
subject to the condition that the entire amount of
Rs.2,30,000/- deposited by the accused-appellant shall
be paid to the complainant-respondent, if the same has
not been paid till date.
6
11. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in
these terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2025.
7