Rajendra Anant Varik vs Govind B. Prabhugaonkar

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4728 of 2023)

RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

Signature Not Verified 2. Leave granted. Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2025.05.06 17:33:39 IST Reason: 1

3. The accused-appellant has approached this Court,

through this appeal by special leave, assailing the

judgment dated 7th January, 2023, passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa1 in Criminal

Appeal No. 53 of 2017 whereby the High Court quashed

and set aside the judgment dated 6th February 2017,

passed by the First Appellate Court being the Court of

Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao2 in Criminal Case

No. 29/NI/2014. The First Appellate Court had allowed

the Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2016 filed by the accused-

appellant against the conviction order dated 5th August,

2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Canacona3, and acquitted him while setting aside

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’. 2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’. 3 3 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court.’

2 his conviction for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18824 as

recorded by the trial Court.

4. While reversing the acquittal of the accused-

appellant, the High Court restored the judgment dated

5th August, 2016, passed by the trial Court in Criminal

Case No. 29/NI/2014, convicting the accused-appellant

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI

Act and directing that he shall pay compensation to the

tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent

under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735

towards the cheque amount and further compensation

to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of cost and, in

default, shall undergo sentence of simple imprisonment

4 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘NI Act’. 5 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.

3 for a period of three months. In addition, the accused-

appellant was directed to undergo sentence till the

rising of the Court.

5. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal,

preferred by the accused-appellant, holding that the

complainant-respondent was indulging in money

lending activities, without acquiring a license and was

thereby acting in breach of the provisions of the Goa

Money-Lenders Act, 20016 and hence, he was precluded

from prosecuting the accused-appellant under NI Act.

6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the

respondent-complainant despite service of notice.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-

appellant, urged that the accused-appellant had

6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘Goa Act’.

4 returned the entire amount of loan taken from the

complainant-respondent between January 2012 to July

2013. He further submitted that since the accused-

appellant has returned the amount of the cheque to the

complainant-respondent with interest payable

thereupon, he is entitled to be acquitted by

compounding the offence.

8. Upon having considered the entirety of the facts

and circumstances as emerging from the record, we find

that the High Court, while reversing the acquittal of the

accused-appellant, as recorded by the First Appellate

Court, did not advert to the important issue regarding

applicability of the Goa Act which provided a valid

defense available to the accused-appellant. Thus,

apparently, the judgment rendered by the High Court

does not stand to scrutiny.

5

9. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the

cheque amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the

compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, as

imposed by the trial Court, has already been paid by the

accused-appellant.

10. In view of the facts noted above and considering

the aspect that the accused-appellant has already paid

the cheque amount and the fine of Rs. 30,000/-

imposed by the trial Court, we hereby, exercise our

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to

compound the offence and acquit the accused-appellant

of the accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act

subject to the condition that the entire amount of

Rs.2,30,000/- deposited by the accused-appellant shall

be paid to the complainant-respondent, if the same has

not been paid till date.

6

11. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in

these terms.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

MAY 06, 2025.

7