Disposed¶32

Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd. 2 through Nilkamal Amarnath Za v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2025WP/4808/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petitions 4808, 4815, 4822 of 2025; Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd.-2 v. State of Maharashtra; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act compounding; Sessions Judge rejection of composition application; compensation Rs.1,55,000/- held insufficient; Sanjabij Tari v. Kishor S. Borcar (Crl. Appeal No.1755 of 2010); Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines modified; notice returnable 06.11.2025; N.J. Jamadar, J.; interim order, pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: notice issued to the Respondents, returnable on 6 November 2025; learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1 - State; Petitioners granted liberty to serve Respondent No.2 by private service and file an affidavit of service. Petitions admitted for consideration; no final adjudication on merits. ¶32

Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd. 2 through Nilkamal Amarnath Za vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

18 wp 4808 of 2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4808 OF 2025

¶3

Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd.-2

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.4815 OF 2025

¶10

Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd.-2

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

WITH

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.4822 OF 2025

¶17

Cambium Biotech Pvt. Ltd.-2

¶18

... Petitioner

¶19

versus

¶20

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶21

Mr. Narayan G.Rokade, for Petitioners. Mrs. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State in WP No.4808 of 2025. Mr. A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP for State in WP Nos.4815 of 2025 and 4822 of 2025.

¶22

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶23

DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2025

¶24

P.C.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶26

The challenge in these Petitions is to the orders passed by the learned

¶27

Sessions Judge, whereby the applications preferred by the Petitioner – accused to compound the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and acquit the accused in view of the payment of the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court,

¶28

SSP 1/2

¶29

18 wp 4808 of 2025.doc

¶30

came to be rejected. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- ordered to be paid by the learned Magistrate by way of compensation to the Respondent No.2 – complainant cannot be said to be sufficient compensation.

¶31

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari V/s. Kishor S. Borcar and Anr.¹ , wherein the Supreme Court has further clarified the position as regards compounding of the offences under Section 138 of N.I.Act, and modified the guidelines in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu V/s. Sayed Babalal H.² , the issue requires consideration.

¶32