Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Khoda Vipulkumar Laxmanbhai, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Criminal Case No. 882 of 2024 before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka, Ahmedabad Rural. After the complaint was filed, summons were issued, and the petitioner pleaded not guilty. However, he subsequently failed to appear before the trial court, leading to the closure of his right to cross-examine the complainant and to record his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court proceeded ex parte and convicted the petitioner on 8 January 2026. At the time of judgment, the petitioner was absent, and the trial court directed issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against him. The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking conversion of the NBW into a Bailable Warrant or cancellation of the NBW. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was facing another FIR registered at Tarapur Police Station, Anand District, on 11 December 2025, and was pursuing remedies in that matter, which prevented his appearance. Additionally, his advocate failed to inform him of the court dates. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioner had expressed willingness to appear before the trial court and that the NBW was issued at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. The court held that the issuance of an NBW was not warranted in the circumstances and that converting it to a Bailable Warrant would serve the interests of justice. The High Court allowed the petition, converting the NBW into a Bailable Warrant, and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court on the next date fixed by that court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Non-Bailable Warrant - Conversion to Bailable Warrant - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India - The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act and an NBW was issued due to his absence. The High Court held that since the petitioner had a valid reason for absence (facing another FIR) and expressed willingness to appear, the NBW should be converted to a Bailable Warrant to balance the interests of justice. (Paras 1-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction - Absence of Accused - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The trial court conducted proceedings ex parte after the petitioner failed to appear, closed his right to cross-examine and record statement under Section 313 CrPC, and convicted him. The High Court did not interfere with the conviction but modified the warrant. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the trial court against the petitioner after conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be converted into a Bailable Warrant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the trial court be converted into a Bailable Warrant. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on the next date fixed by that court.
Law Points
- Non-Bailable Warrant
- Bailable Warrant
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
