GUNVANTBHAI SHANTILAL SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court upheld the conviction but granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Summary
The applicant, Gunvantbhai Shantilal Shah, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine. He appealed, but the Additional Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. He then filed a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that he had deposited the cheque amount, the offence is quasi‑criminal and compoundable, and there was no perversity in the earlier findings. The High Court, noting that the complainant had received the payment and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025 INSC 1158), declined to set aside the conviction but extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, the applicant was released on probation for six months upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000 with a surety of equal amount, and the revision application was disposed.
Issues considered
- The conviction under Section 138 NI Act can be quashed on the ground that the cheque amount has been paid and there is no perversity.
- Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted in a case of conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
- Whether a revisional court may interfere with the findings of the trial and appellate courts in such matters.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 4
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/632/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 632 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GUNVANTBHAI SHANTILAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR C P CHANIYARA(6836) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 22/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the 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 of conviction and sentence dated
20.01.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Keshod in Criminal Case No. 923 of 1997, whereby the
trial Court was pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act” for short)
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.RA/632/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The said order
was assailed by filing Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2003, wherein,
vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Court, Junagadh, the appeal came
to be dismissed and the order of conviction was confirmed and
upheld. Hence, the present Revision Application has been filed
by the applicant–accused.
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
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
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.RA/632/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
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.
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.
8. The Registry is directed to release the deposited amount in
favour of the legal heirs of the complainant after proper and due
verification.
(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 22/04/2026 16:40:23
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.