[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jagrutiben Navinchandra Biscuitwala vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 15 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 70 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
JAGRUTIBEN NAVINCHANDRA BISCUITWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NISHITH P THAKKAR(2836) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/03/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since both the applications are filed by the applicant -
original complainant seeking quashing of the common judgment
and order, both the applications are heard, decided and disposed
of by this common judgment.
1) The applicant - original complainant has filed the present
revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.16
of 2009, passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat and
further to convict the respondent no.2 herein - original accused.
Similarly, the Special Criminal Application is also filed by
the applicant - original complainant to quash and set aside the
judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.133
of 2009, passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat and
further to convict the respondent no.2 herein - original accused.
2) It is the case of the applicant - original complainant that she had
lodged a private complaint No.1 of 2005 against the respondent
no.2 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
No.2, Surat, has convicted the respondent no.2 - accused 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 month and also directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further simple
imprisonment of 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
the accused had filed Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2009, whereas,
the complainant had filed Criminal Revision Application No.133
of 2009, challenging the aforesaid order for enhancement of the
sentence. Both the revision and appeal came to be decided by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat, dated 18.12.2010,
whereby, the Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2009 filed by the
respondent no.2 was partly allowed and the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court was quashed
and set aside and imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- was upheld,
whereas, the Criminal Revision Application No.133 of 2009, filed
by the applicant came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the said judgment dated 18.12.2010, the
applicant - original complainant has filed present revision
application and special criminal application.
3) Learned Advocate Mr. U. M. Panchal, for the applicant - original
complainant has submitted that while passing the impugned
order the learned Sessions Judge has committed error by not
properly exercising the power vested with him and travelled
beyond the jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the
proceedings under Section 138 of the Act came to be preferred
and the Court below ought to have passed appropriate sentence
and direct the accused to pay twice amount of cheque towards
compensation. The respondent no.2 is a builder and has cheated
the complainant though he has received the amount but
possession of the flat was not handed over to her and making
more profit by selling to another person the respondent no.2 had
cheated the applicant. When the complainant had demanded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
back her money the accused gave the cheque which was later
dishonoured. Due to this reason the proceeding was filed and
the applicant was inadequately convicted and revision
application was filed. On the contrary in the appeal filed by the
accused the learned Sessions Judge without properly
appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the
offence is made out and merely based on settlement receipt
produced on record the order of imprisonment for one month
was quashed and imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- was made
absolute. Hence, he has requested to allow the present revision
application and special criminal application by quashing the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and impose
appropriate sentence and to pay compensation.
4) At the outset, it is worth mentioning here that the proceeding
under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the present applicant
and as per the case of the applicant, the applicant has paid full
consideration of house purchased by her, however, the
respondent no.2 failed to hand over the possession of the house.
When the applicant had demanded the accused replied that he is
unable to hand over the possession of the cheque and the
accused issued a cheque of Rs.4,62,000/- against the amount
paid by the applicant for purchasing the house. On presentation
of the said cheque by the applicant the same was dishonoured
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
and proceeding under the NI Act was initiated. Perusing the
record and proceeding it appears that on different dates the
complainant had received part payments towards the amount of
said cheque and she had issued the receipts for the same. The
said receipts are produced on record. As during the pendency
the parties arrived at settlement and considering the
compromise the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion
that the learned trial Court has committed error in recording the
conviction. The settlement agreement is produced at Exhibit 63.
Considering the offence is compoundable one and object of the
Act, since the accused had paid the full amount under the
cheque lesser sentence was imposed. This Court is of the
considered view that since during the pendency of the
proceeding the accused had paid the amount to the complainant
and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/15/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
reasons assigned by both the Courts.
5) 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, the learned Sessions Judge has not
committed any error. Even in revisional jurisdiction the Court
has to be more careful in reappreciating the fact or evidence as
revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide reappreciation of
evidence and considering the limited jurisdiction the Court
cannot act as Appellate Court. Hence, no case is made out for
interference with the impugned findings in light of scope of the
scope of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit
Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460.
6) In view of above, both these applications i.e. Criminal Revision
Application as well as Special Criminal Application stand
dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
