VIJAYKUMAR G Vs. T P HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in CC No. 138/1996 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, (Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram, is the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. The complaint was filed for prosecuting the accused for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). It was alleged that the accused had, in discharge of a liability, issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.30,000/- each, that the cheques on presentation were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, that a notice demanding payment was not heeded to and that therefore, the accused has committed an offence under S.138 of the Act. PWs1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Accused examined himself as DW 1 and produced Ext. D1. Trial Court on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence, found that the accused is guilty of the offence under S.138 of the Act. The following sentence was imposed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court as Crl A. 78/98. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence, found that the conviction of the accused for the offence under S.138 of the Act is justified and affirmed the conviction. But insofar as the sentence is concerned, the Appellate Court noted that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class has no jurisdiction to impose a fine of more than Rs.5,000/- in terms of S.29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), and therefore, went on to hold that the imposition of sentence by the learned Magistrate is liable to be interfered. It was held as follows by the Appellate Court:

(3.) The complainant has come up in revision aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, insofar as the sentence imposed by the Magistrate has been modified by reducing the fine amount from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.