RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK versus GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK versus GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

The High Court's reversal of the First Appellate Court's acquittal did not advert to the applicability of the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001 which provided a valid defence; having regard to the admitted position that the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000 and the Rs.30,000 compensation had been paid, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to compound the offence and acquit the appellant subject to the condition that the deposited amount of Rs.2,30,000 be paid to the complainant if not already paid.

Parties
Appellant: Rajendra Anant Varik; Respondent: Govind B. Prabhugaonkar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (by Special Leave) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; offence compounded and accused acquitted subject to condition
Legal Topics
Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, Applicability of Goa Money Lenders Act, 2001, Compounding of Offence Under Article 142 of the Constitution, High Court Appellate Interference With Acquittal
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act Applicability of Goa Money Lenders Act, 2001 Compounding of Offence Under Article 142 of the Constitution High Court Appellate Interference With Acquittal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajendra Anant Varik

Appellant

Govind B. Prabhugaonkar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (by Special Leave) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the First Appellate Court's acquittal of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's alleged unlicensed money-lending activities under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001 precluded him from prosecuting under the Negotiable Instruments Act
  3. 3 Whether the offence could be compounded under Article 142 of the Constitution given payment of the cheque amount and compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's reversal of the First Appellate Court's acquittal did not advert to the applicability of the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001 which provided a valid defence; having regard to the admitted position that the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000 and the Rs.30,000 compensation had been paid, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to compound the offence and acquit the appellant subject to the condition that the deposited amount of Rs.2,30,000 be paid to the complainant if not already paid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; offence compounded and accused acquitted subject to condition

Orders

  • Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to compound the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
  • Accused-appellant Rajendra Anant Varik is acquitted of the accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 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 not paid to date