High Court of Gujarat

JIGNESH BHARATKUMAR DALWALA PROP. OF BALAJI FASHIONversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The revision application is dismissed and the applicant is released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Summary

The applicant, Jignesh Bharatkumar Dalwala, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a bounced cheque. He appealed the conviction, and the conviction was upheld by the District and Sessions Court and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. During the pendency of a revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant deposited the cheque amount. The High Court observed that the offence is quasi‑criminal, compoundable, and that there was no perversity or ground to disturb the findings of the lower courts. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025 INSC 1158), the Court granted the applicant probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with a bond of Rs 20,000 and one surety for six months, and disposed of the revision application.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on revision.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of the trial and appellate courts in a revision proceeding.
Whether the applicant is eligible for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act after payment of the cheque amount.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 4

Subjects

Section 138 NI ActProbation of Offenders ActRevision under CrPCCheque bounceCompoundable offenceGujarat High Court

Judgment

     R/CR.RA/506/2022                        ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
          NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 506 of 2022

==========================================================
     JIGNESH BHARATKUMAR DALWALA PROP. OF BALAJI FASHION
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHETAN M PANDE(11886) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 05/05/2026

                             ORDER


1.     By way of present revision application under Sections 397
read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the
judgment and order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the learned
District and Sessions Court, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.103 of
2016 and order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case
No.1960 of 2013.


2.     Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that
during the pendency of the present revision application the
applicant has deposited the cheque amount. In view of above
once the amount being deposited and as 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


                             Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.RA/506/2022                        ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




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. No case is made out to interfere with the reasons
assigned by both the Courts.


3.     At the same time this Court has taken into consideration
the object of the Act as accused made payment and complainant
has received the same, hence, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S. Borcar, Neutral
Citation 2025 INSC 1158, maintaining the conviction this Court
is inclined to extend the benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, to the applicant-accused.


4.     Accordingly, the applicant – accused is directed to be
released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, upon execution of probation bond in
sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one surety of like amount for a period
of six months.



5.     It is hereby further directed that the applicant - accused
shall receive the sentence as and when called upon till the said
period and the applicant shall maintain peace during above
mentioned period of six months.




                               Page 2 of 3
     R/CR.RA/506/2022                                               ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




6.     The above mentioned bond under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, be submitted before the learned trial
Court within 15 days of passing of this judgment.


7.     Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of.
Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.




                                                                (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
       ALI




       Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
       Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/05/2026 18:20:32




                                           Page 3 of 3

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Section 138 NI Act"Sign in to search