IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3730 of 2008(E) ------------------------------- CRA.592/2005 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1045/1992 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- G. ANILKUMAR, S/O. GOPINATHAN, ANILNIVAS, MANIYAR, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. HARSHAKUMAR, S/O.SASI, MANIKANDAVILASAM, MANIYAR, PUNALUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 SRI.S.ABHILASH FOR R.1 SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN FOR R.1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3730 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant and first respondent the accused in C.C. 1045 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Punalur. First respondent was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs.95,000/- for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. First respondent challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl. Appeal 592 of 2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction. But it was found that sentence of fine in excess of Rs.5000/- is illegal in view of section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Sessions Judge took note of the fact that the financial powers of the Magistrate in awarding sentence of fine in excess of Rs.5000/- came into force only on 6.2.2003 and as the complaint was filed on 10.10.2002 learned Magistrate could not have awarded a fine above Rs.5000/-. The sentence was therefore reduced to fine of Rs.5000/-. It is CRRP3730/08 2 challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that learned Sessions Judge should not have reduced the fine to Rs.5000/- when Ext.P1 cheque was for Rs.95,000/-. 4. On hearing the learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the modified sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. Though proviso to sub section (1) of section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act enables the Magistrate to award a sentence of fine, exceeding Rs.5000/-, it came into force only on 6.2.2003. Similarly the enhancement of power of the Magistrate to impose fine of Rs.5000/-, under section 29 of Code of Criminal Procedure came into force only with effect from 23.6.2006. Therefore learned Sessions Judge was justified in reducing the sentence to fine of Rs.5000/-. Though learned counsel argued that the learned Sessions Judge should have converted the fine into compensation, when fine forms part of the sentence as provided under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., compensation cannot be awarded under sub section 3. When fine forms part of the sentence, compensation could be awarded CRRP3730/08 3 only as provided under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C., which could only be the whole or part of the sentence. In such circumstances revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-