Dineshchand Surana vs UCO Bank - 2026 Supreme(SC) 626

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 626

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Dineshchand Surana – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Angad Pahel, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Ishita Khurana, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta, AOR Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX

A.	FACTUAL MATRIX
B.	SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
C.	ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
D.	ANALYSIS
I.	Criminal nature of Section 138 of the NI Act
(i)	Effect of “deeming fiction” in Section 138 of the NI Act
(ii)	Objective of the enactment of Section 138 of the NI Act and nature of the offence made out therein
	Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Banking Amendment Act, 1988
	Stage at which the offence stands committed is different from the stage at which it is prosecuted
	Difference in stages of commission and prosecution of offence acts as safeguard for bona fide persons
	Minor nature of the offence
	(iii) Analysis of P. Mohanraj (supra) as regards nature of Section 138 offence
	(iv) Quasi-criminal nature of offence under Section 138
	(v) Distinction between fine and compensation
	Scheme of compensation under the NI Act prior to the introduction of Chapter XVII
	Compensation order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 626

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHANDineshchand Surana – AppellantVersusUCO Bank – Respondent

Cases Referred (28)

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Dineshchand Surana – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent