Bombay High Court
KIRIT RATILAL SHAHversusMOHAN HIRCHAND SHAH and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 is upheld, but the imprisonment sentence is set aside, leaving only the fine.
Summary
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for a complaint filed in 1997, and the trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000. The petitioner appealed, seeking leniency based on submissions made by the complainant, but the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal without recording reasons. In the revision, the High Court noted that the appellate court had mechanically rejected the leniency plea and, considering the overall facts, partially allowed the revision. The court upheld the conviction but set aside the imprisonment portion of the sentence, retaining only the fine. The revision application was thus disposed of with the sentence modified.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the circumstances of the case?
- Did the appellate court err in rejecting the petitioner's plea for leniency without providing reasons?
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- criminal revision
- sentencing discretion
- leniency
- fine
- imprisonment
Judgment
1 904-REVN 119-03.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2003
Kirit Ratilal Shah … Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan Hirchand Shah & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Sumedh S. Modak, appointed advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prathamesh Naik h/f Kocharekar for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. This Criminal Revision Application takes exception to the judgment
Digitally
signed by and order dated 04th March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
MUGDHA
MUGDHA MANOJ
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date: Raigad-Alibag in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2002.
2026.08.28
14:36:45
+0530
2. Respondent No.1 herein had filed the complaint case against the
Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The trial court by the judgment and order dated 19 th June 2002
convicted the present Petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge has dismissed the Appeal filed by the present Petitioner
against the judgment and order of the trial court.
Mugdha 1 of 3
2 904-REVN 119-03.doc
5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the
judgment and order of the trial court. It is submitted that a specific
submission was made before the trial court by the advocate for
Respondent No.1 that the present Petitioner may not be sentenced to
imprisonment. It is submitted that on the very same ground the prayer
was made before the appellate court to show leniency, however, the
appellate court without recording any reasons rejected the said prayer.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
court and the appellate court. It appears that specific submission was
made before the appellate court to show leniency in view of the certain
submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.1-original complainant
before the trial court and based on certain peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. However, the appellate court has mechanically
rejected the said prayer. The complaint is of the year 1997 and therefore, I
am not inclined to remand the matter back to the appellate court.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the following order
is passed :-
ORDER
i. The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
Mugdha 2 of 3
3 904-REVN 119-03.doc
ii. The conviction of the Petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the trial court is set aside and the sentence of
fine is maintained.
9. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 3 of 3
Checking your session…