Criminal revision is not maintainable to enforce the recovery of compensation awarded in NI Act proceedings.

The applicant (original complainant) initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) following the dishonor of cheques.

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, convicted the respondent (accused), sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,500.

The accused challenged this before the Additional Sessions Judge.

During the pendency of the appeal, the accused deposited the cheque amount in court.

Consequently, the Appellate Court modified the sentence to "till rising of the Court" (TRC), increased the fine to Rs. 10,000, and directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 2,500 with 6% interest per annum from the date of dishonor.

The complainant filed the present revision applications, primarily contending that the accused had failed to deposit the ordered interest and compensation.

1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in reducing the substantive sentence and modifying the order of compensation after the cheque amount was deposited.

2. Whether a criminal revision application is maintainable for the primary purpose of recovering unpaid compensation or executing a lower court's order.

The court primarily applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) regarding revisional jurisdiction.

It relied on the precedent in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta, which characterized Section 138 offenses as quasi-criminal and compoundable, stating that the primary objective is to ensure payment and promote the credibility of cheques rather than seeking retribution.

The court also cited Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S Boarcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158) regarding the modification of sentences in such matters.

The High Court found that the Appellate Court's decision to modify the sentence was legally sound given that the accused had deposited the disputed cheque amount during the appeal.

Following the Meters and Instruments doctrine, the court emphasized that the NI Act is a mechanism to facilitate financial recovery and trustworthy substitute for cash, making a reduction in jail time appropriate once the liability is addressed.

Addressing the complainant's grievance regarding the non-payment of interest, the court reasoned that the CrPC (and subsequently the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) provides a specific statutory mechanism for the recovery of fines and compensation.

The court concluded that a revision application cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings; therefore, the mere non-payment of the awarded interest does not render the Appellate Court’s judgment illegal or improper.

The revision applications were disposed of, and the notices were discharged.

The court granted the applicant liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings before the relevant forum to recover the outstanding compensation and interest, clarifying that such proceedings should be decided independently on their own merits.