Nanalal Karshan Limbani vs State Of Gujarat
- Citation2026 SCC OnLine Guj 4070
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A revisional court will not re-examine concurrent findings of fact made by both the trial court and the appellate court in the absence of perversity, and has no jurisdiction in revision to re-analyse and re-interpret evidence. Where an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in character and compoundable, and the accused has made payment of the cheque amount, the court may extend the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while maintaining the conviction, having regard to the object of the Act which is to ensure payment of money and promote credibility of cheques rather than to seek retribution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
R/CR.RA/63/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 63 of 2012
With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================ NANALAL KARSHAN LIMBANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MONALI H BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/04/2026
JUDGMENT
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 of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2010 passed by
the learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhuj -
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:08:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
Kutch in Private Criminal Case No.1000 of 2007, whereby, the
trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "NI
Act" for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year and also directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further simple
imprisonment for one month. The said order was assailed by
way of filing Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2010, wherein, vide order
dated 25.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch
- Bhuj, the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, the present
Revision Application is filed by the applicant-accused.
2) Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that pursuant
to the order dated 24.03.2026, non bailable warrant came to be
issued against the accused and at present he is in custody. He
has further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to
deposit Rs.70,000/- i.e. cheque amount before the Registry of
this Court. In view of above, the applicant is permitted to
deposit the cheque amount before the Registry of this Court.
Therefore, once the amount being deposited and 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
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:08:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
payment of money and to promote credibility of cheques as a
trustworthy substitute for cash payment, in absence of any
perversity 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 and as the accused has made the payment,
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 one
(1) year.
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 one (1) year.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:08:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
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) It is kept open for the respondent no.2 to release the amount in
his favour.
9) In view of the above, the non bailable warrant issued against the
applicant is hereby cancelled and the applicant is released on
bail subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs.70,000/-
i.e. cheque amount before the Registry of this Court.
10) The Jail Authority is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if
not required in any other offence.
11) Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2026 also
stands disposed of.
12) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail
Authority via FAX. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI
Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:08:44 IST 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free