Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld but sentence substituted with release on probation upon deposit of cheque amount.

The applicant was convicted by the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhuj, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act in Private Criminal Case No. 1000 of 2007

He was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. This judgment was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2010 on January 25, 2012

The applicant filed the present Revision Application and was subsequently taken into custody following the issuance of a non-bailable warrant on March 24, 2026

During the proceedings, the applicant expressed readiness to deposit the cheque amount of Rs. 70,000

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction after the accused has offered to deposit the cheque amount

2. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be extended to an accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act

The Court applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the offence is quasi-criminal and compoundable, intended to ensure monetary payment rather than retribution

It relied on the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, which restricts the court from re-analyzing evidence in the absence of perversity

The court applied the precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, regarding the release of offenders on probation of good conduct

The Court observed that since the applicant volunteered to deposit the full cheque amount (Rs. 70,000), the primary objective of the NI Act—ensuring the credibility of cheques—was satisfied

Holding that revisional jurisdiction does not permit a de novo trial or re-interpretation of evidence without proof of perversity, the Court maintained the conviction

However, considering the quasi-criminal nature of the offence and the payment made, the Court determined that imprisonment was unnecessary. Following the Supreme Court’s direction in Sanjabij Tari, the Court modified the sentence by substituting incarceration with a probation bond, ensuring the applicant remains liable to serve the sentence only if the conditions of the one-year good conduct period are breached

The applicant was ordered to deposit Rs. 70,000 before the Registry, which Respondent No. 2 is permitted to withdraw. Consequently, the non-bailable warrant was cancelled, and the Jail Authority was directed to release the applicant forthwith upon fulfillment of the deposit and bond conditions