1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2009 Dattatraya S/o Tukaram Katale ..... PETITIONER V E R S U S Rajesaheb S/o Manmath Somwanshi .... RESPONDENT Shri. V. V. Tamke, Advocates for Petitioner. [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 18/06/2009 ------------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. V. V. Tamke, counsel appearing for Petitioner. The petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Latur on 30/7/2008 in S.T.C.C. No. 919 of 2007, whereby the petitioner came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short ‘ the Act ’ ) and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. 2 The petitioner is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order. The petitioner herein preferred an Appeal to the Court of Sessions raising challenge to the order passed by the Magistrate, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2008. In the pending Appeal, petitioner herein presented an application for stay of order passed by the trial Court in respect of direction to the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/-. The first Appellate Court while dealing with the application, directed the petitioner to deposit half of the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of order. The first Appellate Court also directed the appellant/petitioner herein to furnish P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd Adhoc Sessions Judge, Latur, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay 50 % amount of the compensation awarded by the trial court during the pendency of Appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court by presenting instant Criminal Writ Petition. 3. The Criminal Writ Petition need not be entertained for the reason that the same has been presented questioning validity of the 3 interlocutory order passed in the said Criminal Appeal. The contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of imposition of compensation as well as fine amount simultaneously by the Magistrate, is also not acceptable in view of Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 – SC – 567 – Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel V/s State of Gujrat and another. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate dealing with the trial in respect of offence under Section 138 of the Act is not empowered to impose fine as well as direct payment of compensation simultaneously. Considering the scheme of Section 138 of the Act as well as the powers of the Magistrate dealing with the charge, it is evident that in view of provisions of Section 29 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is empowered to impose fine to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) only. However, taking recourse to Section 325 of Code of Criminal Procedure, there are no fetters on the powers of Magistrate in respect of issuing directions for payment of compensation. The order passed by the first Appellate Court, therefore, can not be said to be illegal or perverse. No interference is called for in this Writ Petition. It is devoid of substance, hence rejected. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIWP174.09 4