RAJENDRA ANANT VARIK versus GOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 05-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 303 : 2025 INSC 633
Rajendra Anant Varik 
v. 
Govind B. Prabhugaonkar 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2476 of 2025)
06 May 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment 
of the First Appellate Court acquitting the appellant-accused and 
setting aside his conviction u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881 as recorded by the trial Court.
Headnotes†
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Goa Money-Lenders 
Act, 2001 – Applicability of – First Appellate Court allowed 
the appellant’s appeal against conviction – It was held that 
as the respondent-complainant was indulged in money 
lending activities without acquiring a license, thus, he was 
acting in breach of the provisions of the Goa Act and hence, 
he was precluded from prosecuting the appellant under 
NI Act – Acquittal reversed by High Court  – Interference  
with:
Held: High Court while reversing the acquittal of the appellant did 
not advert to the important issue regarding applicability of the Goa 
Act which provided a valid defense available to the appellant – 
Further, the appellant has already paid the cheque amount and the 
fine imposed by the trial Court – Offence compounded in exercise 
of powers u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India – Appellant acquitted 
subject to the condition stated – Constitution of India – Art.142. 
[Paras 8, 10]
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001; 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India.
* Author
304
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Valid defense; Money lending activities; Without acquiring license; 
Precluded from prosecuting; Appeal against conviction; Acquittal 
reversed; Offence compounded; Compensation paid; Cheque 
amount paid; Powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India 
exercised.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2476 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in CRLA No. 53 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ivo Dcosta, Guruprasad Naik, Sahil Tagotra.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.	
Heard.
2.	
Leave granted.
3.	
The accused-appellant has approached this Court, through this 
appeal by special leave, assailing the judgment dated 7th January, 
2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa1 
in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2017 whereby the High Court quashed 
and set aside the judgment dated 6th February 2017, passed by the 
First Appellate Court being the Court of Sessions Judge, South Goa 
at Margao2 in Criminal Case No. 29/NI/2014. The First Appellate 
Court had allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2016 filed by the 
accused-appellant against the conviction order dated 5th August, 2016 
1	
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
2	
Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
305
Rajendra Anant Varik v. Govind B. Prabhugaonkar
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona3, 
and acquitted him while setting aside his conviction for the offence 
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
18824 as recorded by the trial Court.
4.	
While reversing the acquittal of the accused-appellant, the High 
Court restored the judgment dated 5th August, 2016, passed by the 
trial Court in Criminal Case No. 29/NI/2014, convicting the accused-
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the 
NI Act and directing that he shall pay compensation to the tune of 
Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent under Section 357 of 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 towards the cheque amount and 
further compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of cost 
and, in default, shall undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for 
a period of three months. In addition, the accused-appellant was 
directed to undergo sentence till the rising of the Court.
5.	
The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal, preferred by the 
accused-appellant, holding that the complainant-respondent was 
indulging in money lending activities, without acquiring a license 
and was thereby acting in breach of the provisions of the Goa 
Money-Lenders Act, 20016 and hence, he was precluded from 
prosecuting the accused-appellant under NI Act. 
6.	
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-
complainant despite ser

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.