IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 486 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.11/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.12/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RAJEEV, S/O. KUNNATHULLY RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, PONALLUR DESOM, MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARATHAN, S/O. BLANGATTU SANKARAN, NEAR MANALUR CHURCH, MANALUR VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SMT. DHANYA P. ASHOK PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-02-2010 ORDER The complainant in C.C. No. 12 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Trichur, is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the modification of the sentence by the lower appellate court to one of fine of Rs.s 5,000/- as against the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial court in a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque involved is for Rs. 25,000 and the date of the cheuq cheque was 15-8-1995. According to the revision petitioner, the lower appellate court erred in not imposing a fine of at least Rs. 25,000/- (cheque amount) or in the alternative in not awarding compensation for at least the cheque amount. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/accused made the following submissions against the enhancement of fine or imposition of compensation as sought by the revision petitioner/complainant:_ The maximum limit of fine which the Magistrate could impose under Section 29 of Cr.P.C. was Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, the Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 -:2:- lower appellate court was fully justified in imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. This was a case where both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court did not award any compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Hence, without challenging the sentence passed by the trial Court which did not impose any compensation it is not open to the revision petitioner to canvass for an order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. The amount covered by the cheque is Rs. 25,000/-. This is a case which arose prior to 6-2-2003 with effect from which date by virtue of the amendment to Sec. 143 of the N.I. Act the fine limit of Rs. 5000/- for the Judicial Magistrate of First Class was got over. Hence, as far as the present case is concerned, the Magistrate could impose a maximum fine of Rs. 5,000/- only. It is true that the trial court imposed only rigorous imprisonment for six months without any order for compensation or fine. It is also true that the lower appellate court modified the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default sentence. But then, the proper order which the Courts below should have passed was imprisonment for a lesser period and compensation by way of at least the cheque amount and by doing that the courts below would not have violated the limit of Rs. 5000/ under Section 29 Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 -:3:- which is applicable only to fine and not compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. (See Bhaskaran v. Balan - 1999 (3) KLT 440 SC). It is true that it is the illegality in the sentence imposed by the lower appellate court which is specifically challenged in this Revision. It is also true that the revision petitioner /complainant did not question the sentence imposed by the trial Court. But then, as was enjoined by the decision of the Apex Court in Harikishan & State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh - AIR 1988 SC 2127 it was obligatory for the Magistrate to liberally exercise its power under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. and awarding compensation to the complainant who had sustained legal injury on account of the act of the accused person. That was not done by the trial court. It is the said illegality which can be taken note of by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 (1) Cr.P.C. In contradistinction with the power of the Sessions Court, the High Court sitting in revision can not only exercise its power of revision in respect of a case the record of which has been called for by itself but also can exercise the said power if the illegality otherwise comes to its knowledge. The illegality of not awarding compensation in spite of the mandate in AIR 1988 SC 2127 (supra) is one which comes to the knowledge of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, in modification of Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 -:4:- the sentence awarded by the lower appellate Court the respondent/ accused is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being the cheque amount as compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. He shall either pay to the complainant or deposit the compensation amount before the trial Court within two months failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks by way of default sentence. Amounts, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court, pursuant to the orders of Court, shall be given credit to while paying or remitting the aforesaid amount of compensation. This Revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 22rd day of February, 2010. SD/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge ani. Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 486 of 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 22-02-2010 ORDER