Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ushaben Jaykumar Bhaitya, was convicted by the JMFC, Dahod in Criminal Case No.1625 of 2014 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. The conviction was upheld by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2015 vide order dated 09.02.2017. The applicant then filed a Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the applicant deposited the entire cheque amount. The High Court noted that the offence under Section 138 is quasi-criminal and compoundable, and the primary object is compensatory, not punitive. Since the cheque amount had been deposited, the court found no reason to interfere with the conviction but modified the sentence to only a fine of Rs.5,000/- (already deposited) and set aside the sentence of imprisonment. The revision application was partly allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Compounding - The offence under Section 138 is quasi-criminal and compoundable; the primary object is to ensure payment of money and promote credibility of cheques, not retribution. Once the cheque amount is deposited, the sentence of imprisonment can be substituted with fine. (Paras 1-4)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Sections 397, 401 - Scope - The revisional court cannot re-analyze and re-interpret evidence unless there is perversity. Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts are not to be disturbed in revision. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act should be upheld or modified in revisional jurisdiction after the accused has deposited the cheque amount.
Final Decision
The revision application is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act is upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The applicant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (already deposited), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
Law Points
- Section 138 NI Act is quasi-criminal and compoundable
- primary object is compensatory
- revisional court cannot re-analyze evidence unless perverse
- sentence can be modified if cheque amount deposited
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 577
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Conviction - Negotiable Instrument Act) No. 152 of 2017
Mr. Dipan Desai for the applicant, Mr. Sahil M Shah for respondent No.1, Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for respondent No.2
Sahyog Credit Cooperative Society Through Its Loan Officer & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2025 passed by JMFC, Dahod in Criminal Case No.1625 of 2014, as confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for dishonour of cheque and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted and sentenced the applicant; appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 138 NI Act should be upheld in revision.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be modified after deposit of cheque amount.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that during pendency of revision, the applicant deposited the cheque amount.
The offence under Section 138 is quasi-criminal and compoundable; punishment is not a means of retribution but to ensure payment.
Ratio Decidendi
In a revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act, if the cheque amount is deposited, the sentence of imprisonment can be substituted with fine, as the primary object of the provision is compensatory, not punitive. The revisional court cannot re-analyze evidence unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is quasi-criminal in character and is compoundable and punishment under the NI Act is not a means of seeking retribution but is more a means to ensure payment of money and to promote credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment.
In absence of any perversity and no ground is found to upset the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and Appellate Court and it is not open for Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence in revisional jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted the applicant on 30.10.2025 in Criminal Case No.1625 of 2014. Appeal to 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod (Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2015) was dismissed on 09.02.2017. Revision filed in High Court on 20.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
