Section 138 NI Act convict granted probation benefit following satisfaction of the cheque amount.

The applicant was convicted by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No. 1215 of 2005 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

He was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000

This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2010 on 17.05.2011

During the pendency of the revision, the applicant deposited the cheque amount of ₹3,25,000 as a condition for the suspension of his sentence

On the date of the final hearing, the applicant’s counsel remained absent despite previous opportunities, leading the Court to decide the matter on its merits based on available records

1. Whether a Revision Application can be decided on merits in the absence of the applicant or their advocate

2. Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction

3. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be extended to an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the cheque amount has been deposited

The Court applied the procedural principle from Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2023), which allows a court to decide a matter in the absence of the applicant based on available records

Substantively, it relied on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting its quasi-criminal character and its objective of ensuring monetary credibility rather than retribution

The Court further applied Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, regarding the release of offenders on probation of good conduct

It also cited Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025 INSC 1158) to justify extending probation benefits when the settlement amount is paid

The Court first addressed the absence of the applicant’s counsel, determining that under the precedent of Taj Mohammad, the court is competent to review the material on record and decide the revision to prevent indefinite delay

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that in revisional jurisdiction, it cannot re-analyze or re-interpret evidence unless there is manifest perversity

Finding no such perversity, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts

However, the Court emphasized that Section 138 of the NI Act is "quasi-criminal" and primarily intended to ensure the payment of money

Since the applicant had already deposited the full cheque amount of ₹3,25,000, the Court reasoned that the statutory object was satisfied

Consequently, following the spirit of Sanjabij Tari, the Court found it appropriate to maintain the conviction while substituting the custodial sentence with the benefit of probation

It directed that the applicant be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of two years

This was contingent upon the applicant executing a probation bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of a like amount before the trial court within 15 days

The applicant was further ordered to maintain peace and appear for sentencing if called upon during the two-year probation period

The revision application was disposed of accordingly