IMPORTANT POINT
Though under Section 357(1), Cr. P.C. the amount of compensation forms part of sentence of fine, under Section 357(3), Cr. P.C. it is separate and compensation can be awarded only where there is no sentence of fine.

Malai Subramanian, J. – The petitioner and respondent in Crl. R.C. Nos.118 and 119 of 2001 are one and the same. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. Nos. 561 and 562 of 1999 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The learned Magistrate after holding the accused/respondent guilty of an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act chose to impose the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for two weeks in both the cases. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, these revisions have been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and to order compensation to the complainant.

2. The amount involved in two cheques issued by the respondent in the case relating to C.C. No, 561 of 1999 is Rs. 1.80,000/- and the three cheques involved in C.C. No. 562 of 1999 are for an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- The main grievance of the petitioner in both the cases is that though the cheques were issued for Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs, 2,70,000/ - respectively, the learned Magistrate passed only a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- only, in both the cases, The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submits that the power of Magistrates is restricted to only Rs. 5,000/- under the head fine as per section 29 Cr. P.C. and therefore there is no question of enhancement of sentence of fine. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment is formal in this case, still by enhancing the sentence of imprisonment, no benefit is going to reach the complainant/ petitioner. Therefore, the main thrust of his argument is that the accused/respondent may be ordered to pay compensation at least to the value of the cheques involved in both the cases.

3. In-so-far as the power of Magistrate to impose a fine of not more than Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, that has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another1. Though Section 325 Cr. P.C. empowers the Magistrate to submit his proceedings to the Chief judicial Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that the accused ought to receive a punishment more severe than that which such. Magistrate is empowered to inflict, that course was not adopted by the learned Magistrate may be because he has not formed such an opinion that the accused deserved severe punishment and it is very much evident when he has imposed only a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. But so far as the sentence of fine is concerned, he had imposed the maximum within his power.

4. The purpose of enacting Section 138 of N.I. Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheque in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficient arrangements by the drawer. Though, the fine of twice the amount of cheque can be imposed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the power of Magistrate is restricted. Under such circumstances, the court shall lean towards ordering payment of compensation instead of imposing fine. Now-a-days, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, most of the Magistrates dealing with such types of cases are so lenient and the accused are left out with a fine of meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/- only, after imposition of imprisonment till the raising of the court. The object of the provision and the stringent punishment contemplated therein, has been lost sight of by the courts concerned. This court, in the case of Janagi v. Lakshml2 has categorically observed as follows:

"The very object of introducing this provision is to bring about honesty and credibility in such transactions. If a person, who has committed such an offence is to be treated so lightly and let off with a flea bite sentence, then the purpose of enactment will be defeated. Provisions regarding punishment should not be m