VIJAYKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C.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 Section 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 Section 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 DW1 and produced Ext.D1. Trial Court on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence, found that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 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 re-appreciation of the evidence, found that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is justified and affirmed the conviction. But in so far 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 Section 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, in so far as the sentence imposed by the Magistrate has been modified by reducing the fine amount from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.