TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amount Fine Amount Deposited Amount 7.5% of the Amount Extra Amount Added Before this Court Criminal Writ Petition No. 4815/2025 Criminal Appeal No. 30/2024 Summary Criminal Case No. 77/2018 000606 Rs. 1,13,176/- Rs. 1,60,000/-, out of which Rs.1,55,000/- to be paid to complainant u/s 357(1) (B) Cr.P.C. and Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Government towards prosecution expenses u/s 357(1) (a) Cr.P.C. Rs. 1,60,000/- Rs. 8,488/- Rs. 30,000/- Criminal Writ Petition No. 4808/2025 Criminal Appeal No. 31/2024 Summary Criminal Case No. 78/2018 000607 Rs.1,13,176/- Rs. 1,60,000/-, out of which Rs.1,55,000/- to be paid to complainant u/s 357(1) (B) Cr.P.C. and Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Government towards prosecution expenses u/s 357(1) (a) Cr.P.C. Rs. 1,60,000/- Rs. 8,488/- Rs. 30,000/- Criminal Writ Petition No. 4822/2025 Criminal Appeal No. 32/2024 Summary Criminal Case No. 79/2018 000608 Rs.1,13,176/- Rs. 1,60,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,55,000/- to be paid to complainant u/s 357(1)(B) Cr.P.C. and Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Government towards prosecution expenses u/s 357(1) (a) Cr.P.C. Rs. 1,60,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Respondent No. 2 from time to time and had been making payments towards the said transactions on a regular basis. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record a chart setting out the particulars of the transactions between the parties. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: Date Particulars of Events 24/03/2017 Petitioner purchased diesel from Respondent No.2 and made part payment of Rs.1,25,981/-. 06/04/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,45,605/- made by Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 19/05/2017 Payment of Rs. 49,000/- made by Petitioner. 21/05/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,56,205/- made by Petitioner. 22/05/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by Petitioner. 29/05/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,56,205/- made by Petitioner. 01/06/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by Petitioner. 09/06/2017 Payment of Rs. 75,943/- made by Petitioner. 16/06/2017 Payment of Rs. 80,000/- made by Petitioner. 29/06/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by Petitioner. 12/07/2017 Payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- made by Petitioner. ii. The Petitioner issued three cheques dated 11th September 2017, 18th September 2017 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. ix. The said applications filed in each of the Appeals came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 14th August 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad. 7) In view of the above factual aspects, Mr. Rokade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that although the application filed by the Petitioner sought acquittal, the learned Appellate Court should have considered the same in the light of paragraph 38 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra). 8) Before considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra), it is also necessary to note that the Supreme Court, in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 has laid down guidelines governing the compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The paragraphs Nos. 21 and 22 of the said decision are relevant which read as under : 21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Legal Services Authority. (Emphasis added) 9) The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) subsequently came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari (supra). The Supreme Court observed that, in spite of issuance of the guidelines issued in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), a large number of cheque dishonour cases continued to remain pending and that interest rates had substantially fallen over the years. In view thereof, the Supreme Court considered it appropriate to revisit and modify the said guidelines. The Supreme Court further considered situations where the complainant was not willing to consent to compounding of the offence and modified the earlier guidelines. Paragraph Nos. 38 and 39 of the judgment in Sanjabij Tari (supra), are relevant in the present case, which read as under : 38 Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view that it is time to 'revisit and tweak the guidelines'. Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines of compounding are modified as under:- (a) If the accused pays the cheque amount bef....