Extending Probation of Offenders Act benefit in NI Act cases upon full satisfaction of compensation.

The applicant was convicted by the 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No. 15001 of 2017 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

He was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and directed to pay Rs. 7,50,000 as compensation to the complainant.

The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2020.

During the pendency of the present revision application before the High Court, the applicant deposited the entire compensation amount.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the trial and appellate courts warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction when the cheque amount has been fully deposited.

2. Whether the court can extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to an accused convicted under the NI Act upon the settlement of the liability.

The court primarily applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing its quasi-criminal nature and the principle that the Act’s objective is to ensure the credibility of cheques and facilitate payment rather than to seek retribution.

The court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that it cannot re-analyze evidence unless perversity is shown.

Furthermore, it relied on Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158, regarding the extension of probation benefits while maintaining conviction.

The court observed that the applicant had deposited the entire amount due to the complainant, thereby satisfying the core objective of the NI Act.

It held that since there was no perversity in the lower courts' findings, the conviction must be upheld, as revisional jurisdiction does not permit a de novo evaluation of evidence.

However, the court reasoned that because the offence is compoundable and the complainant has been made whole, the interest of justice would be served by modifying the sentence.

Applying the ratio in Sanjabij Tari, the court determined that the applicant should be granted the benefit of probation instead of serving the custodial sentence, provided he maintains good conduct and executes the necessary bonds.

The court directed the applicant to be released on a probation bond of Rs. 20,000 for a period of two years.

The applicant was further ordered to maintain peace and appear for sentencing if called upon during this period.

The trial court was directed to release the deposited amount to the complainant after verification.

The revision application was accordingly disposed of.