Supreme Court’s Cheque Bounce Guidelines In Sanjabij Tari Judgment For Compounding Apply Equally At The Appellate Stage: Bombay High Court
The Court clarified that while the specific directions mention "the Magistrate", the legal framework applies dynamically to the appellate stage as well.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar to facilitate the compounding of cheque bounce offences, even when a complainant refuses to consent, are squarely applicable at the appellate stage of litigation.
The ruling came while hearing three criminal writ petitions filed by Cambium Biotech Private Ltd. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, which had rejected their applications for acquittal in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. The Court set aside rejection of acquittal applications, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed, “Though the aforesaid directions are issued to the Magistrate, the same would equally apply at the appellate stage. This is because the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra) govern compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, including before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, the Revisional Court and even the Supreme Court and also contemplates exercise of powers under Section 255(2) and/or Section 255(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 278 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and/or directions issued to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused. All these powers can be exercised even at the Appellate Stage. Therefore, the directions contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment in Sanjabij Tari (supra) are squarely applicable to proceedings pending before the Learned Appellate Court”.
Advocate Narayan Gopinath Rokade appeared for the petitioner and Savita M. Yadav, APP appeared for the respondent.
The dispute pertained to transactions where the petitioner regularly purchased diesel from the complainant. Three cheques issued by the petitioner, each valued at ₹1,13,176, were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to three months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,60,000 per case.
During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner deposited the entire fine amount of ₹1,60,000 for each case and expressed a willingness to deposit an additional ₹30,000 per appeal. However, the Sessions Court rejected the petitioner's acquittal applications, noting that the complainant refused to accept the settlement and insisted on the statutory maximum penalty of twice the cheque amount.
The Supreme Court had modified the older Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. guidelines, acknowledging falling interest rates and persistent case backlogs. Under paragraph 39 of Sanjabij Tari, if a complainant resists compounding over outstanding collateral dues, the court can suggest the accused plead guilty and extend benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act or relevant provisions of the CrPC and BNSS.
The High Court clarified that while these specific directions mention "the Magistrate", the legal framework applies dynamically to the appellate stage as well.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Sessions Court's orders and restored the applications for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to deposit the additional ₹30,000 per appeal within eight weeks, after which the Appellate Court must decide the applications keeping the Sanjabij Tari precedent in view.
Cause Title: Cambium Boitech Private Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 913-CR.WP-4815-2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Narayan Gopinath Rokade a/w. Dipak Vyavahare, Siddharth R. Ghodke, Ramchandra Wagh, Mrunmai K. Rokade and Swapnil Kalokhe, Advocates.
Respondent: Savita M. Yadav, APP, Rohan Dilip Kaiche, Advocate.