A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143, 147 --  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 278 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Cheque bounce complaints -- Compounding of offence – Release on probation -- Not only a voluntary compromise can bring the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act to an end, but the accused under the said offence are entitled to benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Guidelines of compounding given in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 modified :-

(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.

(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque amount.

If the Accused is willing to pay in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the Court may suggest to the parties to go for compounding. If for any reason, the financial institutions/complainant asks for payment other than the cheque amount or settlement of entire loan or other outstanding dues, then the Magistrate may suggest to the Accused to plead guilty and exercise the power under Section 255(2) and/or 255(3) of the Cr.P.C. or 278 of the BNSS, 2023 and/or give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the Accused.

(Para 35-39)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143, 147 --  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223, 278 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Cheque bounce complaints -- Compounding of offence – Massive backlog – Directions issued :-

-- In all cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, service of summons shall not be confined through prescribed usual modes but shall also be issued dasti i.e. summons shall be served upon the accused by the complainant in addition -- Trial Courts shall further resort to service of summons by electronic means  -- Complainant shall, at the time of filing the complaint, provide the requisite particulars including e-mail address, mobile number and/or WhatsApp number/messaging application details of the accused, duly supported by an affidavit verifying that the said particulars pertain to the accused/respondent.

-- The complainant shall file an affidavit of service before the Court. In the event such affidavit is found to be false, the Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the complainant in accordance with law.

-- In order to facilitate expeditious settlement of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of each District Court shall create and operationalise dedicated online payment facilities through secure QR codes or UPI links. The summons shall expressly mention that the Respondent/Accused has the option to make payment of the cheque amount at the initial stage itself, directly through the said online link. The complainant shall also be informed of such payment and upon confirmation of receipt, appropriate orders regarding release of such money and compounding/closure of proceedings under Section 147 of the NI Act and/or Section 255 of Cr.P.C./278 BNSS, 2023 may be passed by the Court in accordance with law. This measure shall promote settlement at the threshold stage and/or ensure speedy disposal of cases.

-- Each and every complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act shall contain a synopsis in the given format.

-- There shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.

-- Since the object of Section 143 of the NI Act is quick disposal of the complaints under Section 138 by following the procedure prescribed for summary trial under the Code, the Court reiterated the direction given in In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138 of NI Act (supra) that the Trial Courts shall record cogent and sufficient reasons before converting a summary trial to summons trial. To facilitate this process, the Trial Court shall be at liberty (at the initial post cognizance stage) to ask questions, it deems appropriate, under Section 251 Cr.P.C. / Section 274 BNSS, 2023 including the following questions:-

(i) Do you admit that the cheque belongs to your account? Yes/No

(ii) Do you admit that the signature on the cheque is yours? Yes/No

(iii) Did you issue/deliver this cheque to the complainant? Yes/No

(iv) Do you admit that you owed liability to the complainant at the time of issuance? Yes/No

(v) If you deny liability, state clearly the defence:

(a) Security cheque only;

(b) Loan repaid already;

(c) Cheque altered/misused;

(d) Other (specify).

(vi) Do you wish to compound the case at this stage? Yes/No

-- The Court shall record the responses to the questions in the order-sheet in the presence of the accused and his/her counsel and thereafter determine whether the case is fit to be tried summarily under Chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C. / Chapter XXII of the BNSS, 2023.

-- Wherever, the Trial Court deems it appropriate, it shall use its power to order payment of interim deposit as early as possible under Section 143A of the NI Act.

-- Since physical courtrooms create a conducive environment for direct and informal interactions encouraging early resolution, the High Courts shall ensure that after service of summons, the matters are placed before the physical Courts. Exemptions from personal appearances should be granted only when facts so warrant. Clarified that prior to the service of summons the matters may be listed before the digital Courts.

-- Wherever cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are permitted to be heard and disposed of by evening courts, the High Courts should ensure that pecuniary limit of the cheque amount is realistic. For instance, in Delhi, the jurisdiction of the evening courts to hear and decide cases of cheque amount is not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. Said limit is too low. The High Courts should forthwith issue practice directions and set up realistic pecuniary benchmarks for evening Courts.

-- Each District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta shall maintain a dedicated dashboard reflecting the pendency and progress of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The dashboard shall include, inter alia, details regarding total pendency, monthly disposal rates, percentage of cases settled/compounded, average number of adjournments per case and the stage-wise breakup of pending matters. The District and Sessions Judges in aforesaid jurisdictions shall conduct monthly reviews of the functioning of Magistrates handling NI Act matters. A consolidated quarterly report shall be forwarded to the High Court.

-- The Chief Justices of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta requested to form Committee on the Administrative side to monitor pendency and to ensure expeditious disposal of Section 138 of the NI Act cases. These Committees should meet at least once a month and explore the option of appointing experienced Magistrates to deal with Section 138 of the NI Act cases as well as promoting mediation, holding of Lok Adalats and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Section 138 NI Act cases.

(Para 36)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 360, 361 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 401, 402 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 – Grievous hurt – Probation to accused – Compensation to complainant -- Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that he is not a previous convict, it is obligatory upon the Court to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict – Petitioner ordered to be released on probation – To balance the rights of the complainant with the benefit of probation extended to the petitioner, Court directed the petitioner-accused to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release -- When the Presiding officer's opinion is sought, the Presiding Officer must submit his opinion at the earliest considering the fact that the issue of liberty of the convict is involved.

(Para 20)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release -- Duty of Government -- It is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy -- It is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission -- District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful -- The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.

(Para 21(a)(g))

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Policy for -- States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months.

(Para 21(b))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Speaking order -- Communication of -- Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons -- The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison -- The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities -- It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.

(Para 21(d))

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Remission – Cancellation of – Opportunity of hearing -- An order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict -- An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons.

(Para 21(e))

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Conviction u/s 452, 324, 323, 506 IPC – Accused released on probation – Probation period already stands expired -- Compensation as ordered by the Appellate Court already stand deposited – Held, nothing survives in the criminal revision, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 12 – Conviction of employee –Probation – Termination of service -- Appellant ordered to be released on probation of good conduct -- Employee cannot claim a right to continue in service merely on the ground that he has been given benefit of probation – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Life imprisonment – Premature release – Non-deposit of fine – Not known to anyone in locality – Ground of rejection -- Petitioner requires to undergo actual sentence of 10 years; and sentence of 14 years by including the remission period, as per Policy, but despite having undergone actual sentence of more than 14 years; and total sentence of more than 22 years by including remission;

-- In case, petitioner has not paid the fine imposed by the court, he is required to undergo default sentence as per the trial court judgment but that cannot be reason to consider petitioner’s case for premature release.

-- If family of petitioner has shifted from earlier address, that again cannot be the reason to decline the relief, once petitioner has fulfilled the parameters provided in the policy.

-- simply because petitioner is not known to anyone in Ludhiana, cannot be a ground to presume that his presence there will create a law and order situation.

Petition allowed, respondents directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Para 1, 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A, 337 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Protracted trial – Probation -- Accident in October, 1999 -- Criminal proceedings for more than 23 years -- Petitioner not involved in any other criminal case and also not misused the concession of bail -- Petitioner was Government employee, after his conviction, he was dismissed from service -- Instead of sending the petitioner behind bars, ordered to release him on probation to serve ends of justice.

(Para 1,9-12,16)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506 – Conviction for one year sentence – Probation – Petitioner already undergone imprisonment for one month and twenty five days – He is first time offender and no other case is pending against him -- Taking into account the young age of convict, protracted trial, antecedents of the convict as well as the period of his incarceration, Court felt, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified by extending the benefit of probation to the petitioners -- Revision partly allowed, sentence part modified, petitioner directed to be released on probation to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.

(Para 11, 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Probation – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since 2012 – No material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents – Held, the accused-petitioner are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on probation, u/s 4 of the Act.

(Para 12-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 360, 361-- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4 -- Theft case – Release on probation – Sentence for simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 3000/- -- Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct -- Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct – There are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct -- Appellants ordered to be released on probation of good conduct.

(Para 3-6)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 325, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction for 2 years – Release on probation in appeal – Challenge to -- All the accused persons are the first time offenders have not committed any other offence pursuant to the occurrence in dispute, which is also of the year 2012 -- Further, the convicts are facing the agony of trial for about 10 years -- They are all poor persons, with their families to look after and as such sending them behind bars after almost 10 years of the occurrence would not serve any purpose – Compensation amount enhanced from Rs.2,500/- each to Rs.5,000/- each.

(Para 10)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61/1/14 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5-- Excise matter – Heavy recovery – Benefit of Probation – Conviction for six months -- Plea of non-following of due process while getting the sample examined -- Considered by the Courts below, wherein, a finding has been recorded that the sample so taken was never tampered with in any manner so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner and the delay in sending the sample for examination itself is no ground to discard the report – Typographical mistake in mentioning the Vehicle number – Prayer that Petitioner being a first offender be granted the benefit of probation – Held, once, the recovery from the petitioner is on the heavy side, no ground is made out to grant the said prayer of the petitioner.

(Para 1, 4-8)

Constitution of India, Article 72, 161 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364-A – United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (UP Act 8 of 1938), Section 2 -- Offence of kidnapping for ransom – Sentenced for life imprisonment – Pre-mature release/ Probation – Right of -- No convict can claim remission as a matter of right -- However, in the case, the circumstances are different – Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing premature release – Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses – Conduct of both petitioners has been more than satisfactory -- They have no material criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16 years in jail (22 years including remission) -- During the course of his incarceration in jail he has pursued as many as eight distance-learning courses -- A balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct -- This would both ensure that liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased threat to society -- Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners -- Petitions disposed of with a direction that the petitioners be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within a period of two weeks -- Respondent-State shall be at liberty to impose conditions as it may deem fit to balance public safety with individual liberty.

(Para 16-22)