Facts
The applicant was convicted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.06.2016 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act regarding a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- issued on 08.07.2011.
Source reference: p. 1-2He was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/-.
Source reference: p. 2This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court on 25.04.2019.
Source reference: p. 2During the pendency of this revision, the applicant deposited the full cheque amount (Rs. 70,000/-) before the trial court.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the applicant can be granted the benefit of probation given that the cheque amount has been deposited during the pendency of the revision.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The court applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonour of cheques and Section 139 regarding the presumption in favour of the holder.
Source reference: p. 2The court referred to Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing revisional powers.
Source reference: p. 1Section 138 is "quasi-criminal" and intended to ensure payment rather than retribution.
Source reference: p. 3Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted while maintaining conviction (Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158).
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act before the lower courts.
Source reference: p. 2Holding that a Revisional Court should not re-analyse evidence in the absence of perversity, the Court found no ground to upset the concurrent findings of guilt.
Source reference: p. 3Noting that the NI Act’s primary object is to promote the credibility of cheques and ensure payment, the Court took cognizance of the fact that the applicant had deposited the entire cheque amount of Rs. 70,000/-.
Source reference: p. 2-3While maintaining the conviction, the Court determined that the interests of justice would be served by substituting the custodial sentence with probation.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence.
The applicant is directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, upon executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety.
Source reference: p. 3The trial court is directed to release the deposited amount (Rs. 70,000/-) to the complainant after verification and the revision application was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
MANISH VINODBHAI TIWARIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in