Bombay High Court
DATTARAM ANAND SHIRODKAR, THR. HIS NEXT FRIEND PRITESH APALI GAWASversusM/S. RAVINDRA PETROLEUM, THR. ITS PROPRIETOR AMIT RAVINDRA KHOLKAR AND ANR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court quashed the imprisonment sentence, imposed a fine of Rs 50,000, and ordered payment of the deposited compensation, while refusing to compound the offence without the victim’s consent.
Summary
The applicant, Dattaram Anand Shirodkar (through his next friend), deposited the full compensation of Rs 4,70,000 and an additional Rs 50,000 in the High Court, seeking to quash the judgment that sentenced him to four months’ simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent (M/s Ravindra Petroleum) refused to accept the compensation, claiming it was inadequate. The Court held that while the offence could be compounded, the victim’s consent was required, and therefore it could not exercise powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 147 of the NI Act. In the interest of justice, the Court set aside the imprisonment sentence, imposed a fine of Rs 50,000, and ordered the deposited compensation and fine to be paid to the respondent with interest. The prior judgments were quashed to the extent of the imprisonment, and the related miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be compounded without the victim’s consent?
- Whether the imprisonment sentence can be set aside on account of payment of compensation and a fine?
- Whether the Court can invoke Section 528 of the BNSS and Section 147 of the NI Act in the present circumstances?
- Whether the earlier judgment and order can be quashed in a criminal revision application
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 147
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- compounding of offence
- criminal revision
- fine
- compensation
- quashing of sentence
- bona fide deposit
- interest
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1826
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
Siddhi/vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2026, CRIMINAL
MISC. APPLICATION NO.942 OF 2024 (F), CRIMINAL MISC.
APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2024 (F)
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2026
DATTARAM ANAND SHIRODKAR,
THR. HIS NEXT FRIEND
PRITESH APALI GAWAS ... APPLICANT
Versus
M/S. RAVINDRA PETROLEUM, THR.
ITS PROPRIETOR AMIT RAVINDRA
KHOLKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2026
M/S RAVINDRA PETROLEUM
THR ITS PROPRIETOR ... APPLICANT
Versus
DATTARAM ANAND
SHIRODKAR ALIAS DATTESH
ANAND SHIRODKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.942 OF 2024 (F)
DATTARAM ANAND SHIRODKAR,
THR. HIS NEXT FRIEND PRITESH
APALI GAWAS ... APPLICANT
Versus
M/S. RAVINDRA PETROLEUM,
THR. ITS PROPRIETOR AMIT
RAVINDRA KHOLKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2024 (F)
DATTARAM ANAND
Page 1 of 6
9th September 2026
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
SHIRODKAR, THR. HIS
NEXT FRIEND PRITESH APALI GAWAS ... APPLICANT
Versus
M/S. RAVINDRA PETROLEUM, THR.
ITS PROPRIETOR AMIT RAVINDRA
KHOLKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
Ms. Laxmi Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Premanand A. Kholkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Gaurish Nagvenker, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent No.2/State.
CORAM:- AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR,J.
Reserved on :- 27th July, 2026
Pronounced on:- 9th September 2026.
ORDER.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the Applicant seeks
quashing of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, sitting at Ponda, in
Criminal Appeal No.79/2024.
3. By the order dated 31.08.2024, the learned Judge has dismissed the
Applicant’s Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated
20.02.2024 passed by the learned JMFC at Ponda in Criminal Case
No. 705/OA/NIA/20222/B. In revision, the impugned order is
challenged on the grounds, more particularly mentioned in
paragraph 9 (c) to (g) of the Revision Application.
Page 2 of 6
9th September 2026
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
4. However, it is submitted that the Applicant, with bona fide intention,
has deposited the entire compensation amount of Rs.4,70,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) before this Court and
the Applicant has no objection if the entire compensation amount
is paid to the Respondent No.1 along with the accrued interest. It
is also submitted that the Applicant, to show his bona fide, has
deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
which can be paid to the Respondent No.1 in addition to the
compensation amount. Additionally, the Applicant has already paid
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) as and by way of
costs to the Goa State Legal Services Authority. In view thereof, it
is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the dispute can be
resolved by paying additional compensation to the Respondent
No.1 and the proceedings be closed in the interest of justice.
5. However, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that
Respondent No.1 is not ready and willing to accept the
compensation amount, as, according to the Respondent No.1, the
same is inadequate.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant as well
as the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
7. The present Revision Application arises from the proceedings
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the
Page 3 of 6
9th September 2026
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
N.I .Act), which are summary proceedings and quasi-criminal in
nature. By depositing the entire compensation amount before this
Court and an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only), the Applicant has shown that he acted in a bona fide
manner. I find that the additional amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) which the Applicant has voluntarily deposited
in this Court is adequate, considering the transaction between the
parties. Therefore, I find it justifiable and equitable to compound
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However,
in view of the fact that the Respondent No.1 has refused to give
consent to the compounding of the offence committed by the
Applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, I cannot exercise
powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and Section 147 of the N.I.
Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S. Pharma Pvt.
Ltd. v. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC
2539).
8. The learned JMFC has sentenced the Applicant to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four months. Further, the Applicant
has been directed to pay Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy
Thousand only) to the Respondent No.1 as compensation. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the Judgment and
Order of the learned JMFC.
Page 4 of 6
9th September 2026
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
9. However, considering that the Applicant has now deposited the
entire compensation amount and an additional amount to
compensate the Respondent No.1, I find it justifiable and equitable
to set aside the sentence of simple imprisonment for four months
and impose a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on
the Applicant.
10. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and to put an end to the
prolonged revision application, the following order is passed:-
(i) The Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2024 in Criminal
Appeal No.79/2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Panaji, sitting at Ponda, Goa, and the
Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2024 passed in Criminal
Case No.705/OA/NIA/2022/B passed by the JMFC,
Ponda, Goa, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the
sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
(ii) The Applicant shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) to the Respondent No.1 as fine under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act.
11. The Registry of this Court is directed to pay the compensation
amount of Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand
Page 5 of 6
9th September 2026
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
only) along with accrued interest deposited by the Applicant to the
Respondent No.1.
12. The Registry is further directed to pay the additional amount of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), along with the accrued
interest, deposited by the Applicant to the Respondent No.1 towards
the fine under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Respondent No.1
shall provide its Bank details to the Registry of this Court for
e-remittance of the compensation/fine amount.
13. The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.
14. In view thereof, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of
2026 filed by the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the compensation
amount stands disposed of. Consequently, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 942 of 2024 (Filing) and 943 of 2024
(Filing), also stand disposed of.
15. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on the production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 10/09/2026 11:09:36 Page 6 of 6
9th September 2026
Checking your session…