IMPORTANT POINT
Magistrate trying offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has no power to impose fine in excess of Rs 5,000/-.

R. Balasubramanian, J. - Heard Mr. T. Sudanthiram learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. Santhanaraman learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners are the accused in Calender Case No. 4601 of 1994 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai and the respondent is the complainant therein. The case was taken on file on a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are two cheques one dated 6-8-1994 and the other dated 20-8-1994 for a sum of Rs. 6.00.000 and Rs. 6.82.000 respectively admittedly given by the accused in favour of the complainant. Those two. cheques are marked as Exs. P-.1 and P-2. On presentation. those cheques were dishonoured. Followed by the statutory notice and giving the accused the time prescribed by the Act to meet the demand and on his failure to make the payment the complaint had come to be lodged.

2. On the side of prosecution. Two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2. The second accused examined himself as DW -1 and marked Exs. D-1 and D-2 on his side. Even in his evidence the accused had not denied their liability in respect of the offence for which the complaint came to be filed. DW.1 also appears to have admitted the issuance of the cheque and the dishonour of the same. The prosecution had also established all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, holding the accused guilty for the offence referred to above earlier, the learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 12,85,000 carrying a default sentence. From the fine amount so imposed, a sum of Rs. 12,82,000 was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal filed by the accused was also dismissed. It is the correctness of the orders referred to above that is being challenged in this revision.

3. Mr. T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, fairly stated that on the facts noticed by the learned trial Magistrate it cannot be contended that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he was tried and convicted and therefore, he is not advancing any contention on merits. Despite that submission, I went through the records and I find from the materials placed before the learned trial Magistrate, an offence falling under Section 138 of the, Negotiable Instruments Act stands fully established and there cannot be two opinions about the same. Therefore the conviction of guilt rendered by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate Judge cannot be assailed at all either on facts or by law. Accordingly the finding of guilt rendered by the learned trial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned appellate Judge is confirmed by this Court as well.

4. However a substantial question of law is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and that is the competency of the trial Magistrate to impose a fine in excess of Rs. 5,000 and the compensation directed to be paid by him from that fine amount. This question namely the competency of Magistrate to impose a fine amount in excess of Rs. 5,000 is no longer res integra and it has been decided by the highest Court of this land in the judgment reported in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankar Vaidhyan Balan1 that he cannot. The Honble Judges, in that judgment, categorically laid down that a Magistrate, trying an offence falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has no power to impose a fine in excess of Rs. 5,000/- That judgment clearly governs the issue in this case and therefore there is a clear illegality on the part of the learned trial Magistrate in imposing a fine of Rs. 12,85,000/- which is far in excess of the permissible upper limit of Rs. 5,000. Under these circumstances, I have no difficulty at all in setting aside the order of the learned trial Court: confirmed by the appellate Court as indicat