Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Nanalal Karshan Limbani vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court27 April 2026

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

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 -

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 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.

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

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