Probation benefit may be extended in Negotiable Instruments Act convictions upon payment of the cheque amount.

The applicant was originally convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2002 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act

The trial court sentenced the applicant to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000

This order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2010, where the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, reduced the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment while maintaining the fine

During the pendency of the present revision application, the applicant deposited the cheque amount via Demand Draft on 18.04.2026

1. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction after the applicant has deposited the cheque amount

2. Whether the applicant can be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while maintaining the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act

The court primarily applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, noting that the offence is quasi-criminal and compoundable, designed to ensure the credibility of cheques rather than seek retribution

Revisional powers were exercised under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which restrict the court from re-analyzing evidence unless perversity is shown

Furthermore, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158, regarding the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for such offences

The court reasoned that as the applicant had deposited the full cheque amount, the primary objective of the NI Act—payment of money—was satisfied

It observed that in the absence of perversity, a revisional court should not re-interpret evidence to upset concurrent findings of lower courts

However, acknowledging the quasi-criminal nature of the offence and the subsequent payment, the court determined that while the conviction should stand, the punitive element could be mitigated

Following the rationale in Sanjabij Tari, the court decided to extend the benefit of probation to the applicant, substituting active imprisonment with a bond of good conduct

The applicant was directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months, upon execution of a bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety

The court ordered the applicant to maintain peace during this period and appear for sentencing if called upon

The Registry was directed to release the deposited amount to the complainant after due verification

The revision application was disposed of accordingly