IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1565 of 2004() ----------------------------- CC.68/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II (MOBILE), ALAPPUZHA .............. PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- M/S. DEVI AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B.SHATHRUGHANA REDDIAR, CULLEN ROAD ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS / STATE AND ACCUSED 1 : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.SUDHA HERBAL (INDIA ) LTD., PRESENT ADDRESS THAIKATT MOOS E.T.M.OUSHADASHALA LTD., VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 662, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.MOHANAN, AGED 48, S/O.SIVARAMAN, KANAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, COURT VIEW ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, ALONG WITH CRL. R.P. NO. 1564/2004 & CRL. R.P. NO. 1566/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------- Crl.R.P. Nos. 1564, 1565 and 1566 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 ORDER These revision petitions are filed by the complainant in a case filed against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director. In Cr.R.P.No.1558/2004 which arises out of judgment in C.C.No.66/2003, the allegation was that the second accused therein being the Managing Director on behalf of the first accused/company issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of a debt or liability of Rs.41,000/-. Similar cheques were also issued by him, which are the subject matter of the other two revision petitions mentioned earlier. The learned Magistrate acquitted the second accused in all the aforesaid three cases on the ground that he was not the Managing Director at the time of the issuance of the cheques in question in all the aforesaid three cases. The accused company was thus convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in all the three cases. These revisions are directed only against the inadequacy of sentence. It is contended by the Crl.R.P. Nos. 1564, 1565 and 1566 2 complainant that since the cheques were issued for Rs.41,000/- each, in discharge of the legally existing debts or liabilities, the learned Magistrate should have directed payment of compensation, at any rate Rs.41,000/- each. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner thus submits that the learned Magistrate was not justified in not awarding compensation of Rs.41,000/- each. It is important to note that the first accused is only a company now represented by the present Managing Director. As such the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. The only other course open to the Magistrate was to sentence the company to pay fine. As the law then stood ie, prior to 06.02.2003, the maximum fine that could be awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class was only Rs.5000/- as provided under Section 29(2) Cr.P.C. That must precisely be the reason, why the learned Magistrate sentenced the first accused company only to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant submits that in view of the fact that the amount payable by the cheque was Rs.41,000/- each, if for any Crl.R.P. Nos. 1564, 1565 and 1566 3 reason the learned Magistrate felt he is not empowered to award a proper sentence against the first accused company then he could have submitted his proceedings to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alapuzha under Section 325 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that law empowers the court to award fine which may be double the cheque amount. At any rate, the cheque amount should have been then awarded by the learned Magistrate, the counsel submits. He further submits that this Court would be justified in remanding the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha for award of proper sentence in the aforesaid three cases especially because the verdict of conviction passed against the first accused company in three cases have not been challenged by filing appeal. Sri.Sreekumar appearing for the first respondent/accused submits that appeals were filed challenging the conviction before Sessions Judge, Alappuzha and those appeals have been withdrawn by this court. Those appeals are only against the judgment in C.C.Nos.66/2003 and 69/2003, and not against these three cases. Therefore, the aforesaid three matters can be remanded to Crl.R.P. Nos. 1564, 1565 and 1566 4 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha for awarding proper sentence. In the result, the aforesaid three revision petitions are allowed remanding the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha and that court will pass appropriate sentence against the first accused company taking note of the fact that those cheques were issued for Rs.41,000/- each. The parties will appear before that court on 01.09.2011. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ln