Gujarat High Court
Mohamad Akhtar Mohamad Aaslam Ansari vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/279/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 279 of 2015
=======================================================
MOHAMAD AKHTAR MOHAMAD AASLAM ANSARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1) Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the applicant remained present, but learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent. Even on the earlier date, learned counsel for respondent No.2 had remained absent. Therefore, it clearly transpires that the respondent No.2 is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the present revision application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the respondent No.2 based on available material on record.
2) In view of the above facts of the case and at the request of learned for the applicant and ld. APP, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:01:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/279/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined
3) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the applicant - complainant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.06.2015 rendered by learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.105/2001, whereby learned Sessions Court has been pleased to reject the appeal of the applicant and uphold the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, NI Act, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.2395/2009.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Acharya, has submitted that during the pendency of the present revision application, respondent No. 2 has expired. He has further submitted that, during the pendency of the application, the applicant had deposited the cheque amount of Rs. 1,63,710/-, and by an order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.01.2016 passed in CRMA No. 856/2016 in CRMA No. 23107/2015, the complainant was permitted to withdraw the said amount. Further, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the applicant at the time of suspension of sentence, vide order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2011, shall be refunded to the applicant after due verification.
5) 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 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:01:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/279/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 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.
6) 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.
7) 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 2 years. 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 2 (two) years. 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.
8) Accordingly, present revision application is disposed of. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwit. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:01:55 IST 2026