Bombay High Court
GOVIND MADHAV UPASEversusDATTATRAY MADHAV HABBU AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R N LADDHA
Holding
The conviction is upheld, but the sentence is modified to the period already served by the appellant.
Summary
The applicant, Govind Madhav Upase, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment with a compensation order of ₹50,000. He appealed the conviction, but the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. In the revision, the applicant did not contest the conviction but sought modification of the sentence, arguing that he had already served approximately seventy‑four days and that the lower courts had not recorded any reasons for the three‑month term. The High Court observed that no specific justification for the length of imprisonment was provided and that the applicant had substantially served the sentence and paid the compensation. Consequently, while the conviction was affirmed, the Court modified the sentence to reflect the time already served, leaving the compensation order unchanged. The revision application was disposed of with the sentence modification.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be challenged on a revision application.
- Whether the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment can be modified when the appellant has already served a substantial portion of it.
- Whether the lower courts were required to record specific reasons for imposing the particular term of imprisonment.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- sentencing
- revision
- modification of sentence
- compensation
- criminal conviction
Judgment
Mamta Kale 36-revn-79-2008.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 2008
Govind Madhav Upase
Age 32 years, Occ. Business,
R/at S.No.59/2A-2/A, Vardavan
Colony, Rahatni, Kalewadi, Pune.
At present in Yerwada Jail. … Applicant
versus
1. Dattatray Madhav Habbu
Age Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. S. No.109, Plot No.A/12,
Vishnudev Nagar, Wakad,
Dist. Pune.
2. The State of Maharashtra …Respondents
----
Mr U B Nighot, for the Applicant.
Mr Aditya Sawant, Appointed for Respondent No.1.
Ms A A Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2/ State.
Digitally
signed by
----
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.02.03
12:03:32
+0530
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 2 February 2026
P.C.:
. The present Criminal Revision Application has been
pending since the year 2008. By way of this application, the
applicant has called in question the judgment and order dated 8
February 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________
2 February 2026
Mamta Kale 36-revn-79-2008.docx
Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2004, as well as the
judgment and order dated 10 February 2004 passed by the
learned Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 4530 of 2002.
By the said order, the learned Magistrate convicted the
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
compensation of ₹50,000/-, with default stipulations. The
appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 8
February 2008.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant does not challenge the finding of
guilt or the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and
confirmed by the Appellate Court. The limited grievance
concerns the sentence imposed. It is contended that neither the
Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has assigned any specific
reasons justifying the imposition of three months’ rigorous
imprisonment. It is further submitted that the applicant was
taken into custody on 8 February 2008 and remained
incarcerated till 22 April 2008, thereby undergoing
imprisonment for approximately seventy-four days. The
applicant has also deposited the entire compensation amount as
directed by the Courts below. In these circumstances, it is urged
Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________
2 February 2026
Mamta Kale 36-revn-79-2008.docx
that the applicant has substantially undergone the sentence
awarded to him. Considering that the appeal was decided in the
year 2008 and a considerable period has elapsed thereafter, the
sentence imposed may be suitably modified to the period
already undergone.
3. Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgments and
orders, it is evident that no specific reasons have been recorded
by the Courts below for awarding a sentence of three months’
rigorous imprisonment. It is an admitted position that the
applicant has already undergone nearly seventy-four days of
imprisonment and has complied with the order of payment of
compensation in full.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while the
Criminal Revision Application deserves to be dismissed insofar
as the challenge to conviction is concerned, the sentence
imposed upon the applicant calls for modification. Accordingly,
the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already
undergone by the applicant, and the order directing payment of
compensation, which has already been complied with, is
maintained.
5. The Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, disposed
of in the above terms.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________________________
2 February 2026
Checking your session…