IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3441 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.384/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE CC.138/2005 of J.F.C.M. II (ADDL. MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.ABDULLA, 56 YEARS, S/O.M.B.MAMMUNHI, SUHANA MANZIL, UPPALA, MANGALAPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. MOOSA BAPPUNHI, AGED 64, S/O.BAPPUNHI, NEAR JUMA MASJID, ARIKKADY, ARIKKADY VILLAGE, KUMBALA (P.O), KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADVS. M/S. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO & SMT.N.SHOBHA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No.3441 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 9th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this Revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 138 of 2005 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate - II (Addl. Munsiff), Kasaragod challenges the judgment dated 3- 5-2009 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Court, (Adhoc - III), Kasaragod in Crl. Appeal No. 384 of 2006. The above C.C. case was a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/-. As per judgment dated19-10-2006 the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with a further direction that the fine amount as and when realised shall be paid to the Crl.R.P. No. 3441 of 2009 -:2:- complainant as compensation evidently under Sec. 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred the above appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The lower appellate court instead of deciding the appeal on merit came to the conclusion that it was not permissible for the magistrate to impose a sentence of fine beyond Rs. 5,000/- (which is the limit prescribed to the Magistrate under Sec. 29 of the Cr.P.C) and accordingly the Sessions Judge set aside the judgment under appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Hence, this Revision. 2. Heard both sides. The view taken by the lower appellate court regarding the sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly wrong. This is a case instituted by means of a private c0mplaint in the year 2005 which is long after the amendment of Sec. 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with effect from 6-2-2003 by amending Act 55 of 2002. After the said amendment notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is given the power to pass a sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/-( which was the Crl.R.P. No. 3441 of 2009 -:3:- outer limit under Sec. 29 Cr.P.C. at that time). Hence, the Magistrate was perfectly right in awarding the sentence of fine beyond the limit under Sec. 29 Cr.P.C. The judgment under Revision is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court for disposal of Crl.A.No. 384 of 2006 on merits in accordance with law after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. It shall be open to the revision petitioner to argue the appeal on merits. Both sides shall appear before the lower appellate court on 29-3-2010 without any further notice. The lower appellate Court shall hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously and at any rate within two months of 29-3- 2010. The Registry shall re-transmit the records to the lower Appellate Court forthwith. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P. No. 3441 of 2009 -:4:- ani.