Sirpurkar, J. - On the other hand, it has been shown by the learned Counsel for the complainant that a view has been taken by this Court in accordance with what we have expressed above in he decision in A.Y. Prabhakar v. Naresh Kumar N. Shah, 1995 (83) Company Cases 191, basing the interpretation completely on the nan obstante clause and holding that the Magistrate had a jurisdiction to impose a heavier fine than the one sanctioned in Section 29(2) of the Code. By the very same learned Judge, Crl. O.P. Nos. 1856 and 1857 of 1991 dated 12.6.1991 Mani Thiagarajan v. M.Mohan, have been decided in the similar manner.

36. The learned Counsel for the complainant also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Mohan Krishna v. Union of India, 1996 Crl. L.J. 636 where while holding that this legislation is not ultra vires the powers of the Union Parliament, the Division Bench also interpreted the provisions of Sections 138 and 142 of the present Act. In paragraph 54, this precise clause 142 (c) favours consideration of the Division Bench. The learned Judges have held as under :

"When Section 142 was enacted, the Union Parliament was aware of the fact that the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class was limited to imposing a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. That is why, the Section begins with a non-obstante clause. Further, under Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code, although to be tried in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the same shall be "subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences."

Therefore, a Judicial First Class Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate trying an offence under Section 138 has power to impose fine in excess of Rs. 5,000/- if the fact situation so warrants.

We are in complete agreement with the conclusions reached. We have already shown in details as to how the said power can be read in the Magistrate considering the over all language of the non obstante clause as also Sections 138 and 142 (c) of the Act.

37. The two Kerala High Court cases have reiterated the same view relying upon the view expressed by this Court in A.Y. Prabhakar's case, cited supra. The two Kerala High Court Judgments are :

(1) K.P. Sahadevan v. T.K. Sreedharan, 1996 Crl. L.J. 1223; (2 )Jaya Baby v. Vijayan, 1994 (81) Company Cases 572=1990-96 (Supp.) ISJ (Banking) 438.

The second decision relied upoa by the learned Counsel for the complainant is extremely interesting as the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court K.T. Thomas, J. (as His Lordship then was) has chosen to take a view which can be termed as a "pragmatic view". The argument raised there, was that where the cheque is for more than Rs. 2,500/-, then, the matter should be tried only by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate could not award a sentence of enhanced fine as contemplated under Section 138 because of Section 29 of the Code. The learned Judges observed:

"If the above argument gains acceptance the consequences is that all Chief Judicial Magistrate Courts would be inundated with a spate of complaints since most of the cheques would be for amounts far in excess of half the figures up to which a Judicial Magistrate of First Class can impose the fine sentence. Parliament would not have intended to create such a situation when it provided in Section 142 of the Act than no Court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class (or Metropolitan Magistrate) shall try such offence."

We are in respectful agreement with these expressions.

38. It was argued that even if no jurisdiction was found in Magistrate, the Magistrate can make a reference under Section 325 of the Code