K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.

This revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 474/96 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur challenging the judgment passed by the trial court on 19.6.1999 as modified by the Sessions Court, Thrissur, in Crl. Appeal No. 270/1999 by judgment dated 30.10.1999.

2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, 1st respondent herein. The trial court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment to undergo S.I. for three months and directed payment of fine, if realised, to the complainant being compensation under S.357 of Cr.P.C. The accused challenged the judgment before the Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A. No. 270/99. The Sessions Court, Thrissur by judgment dated 30.10.99 confirmed the finding of guilt and conviction and modified the sentence. Accordingly the appellate court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation in default of payment of compensation to undergo S.I. for three months. Hence the accused has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

3. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to alter the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court into a sentence of imprisonment and compensation under S.357 of the Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that as it is now well settled that the trial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to impose a fine of more than Rs. 5,000/- while convicting and sentencing the accused under S.138 of the N.I. Act, the sentence awarded by the trial court is illegal since fine of Rs.1 lakh is imposed in this case. Therefore, according to him, the appellate court should have modified the sentence by confining the fine amount to Rs. 5.000/-, which is the maximum fine awardable by First Class Magistrate under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

4. The above contentions raised by the revision petitioner are unsustainable. It is clear from S.386 of the Cr.P.C. that the appellate court has all the powers to reverse, alter or modify the sentence passed by the trial court while deciding the appeal. In this case both the courts found the revision petitioner guilty concurrently and convicted him. The appellate court has only modified the sentence by invoking the provisions of S.357(4) of the Cr.P.C. and instead of imposing sentence of fine awarded by the trial court, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay the compensation. S.357(4) of the Cr. P.C. empowers the appellate court or this court to award compensation under S.357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the power of the appellate court to award compensation cannot be challenged.

5. The further question to be considered is whether the appellate court has got jurisdiction to convert the sentence of fine of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the trial court into sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- under S.357(1) of the Cr.P.C. The contention raised by the revision petitioner is that in view, of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court the trial Magistrate is competent to impose a fine of Rs. 5000/- in view of S.29(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, according to him, the sentence awarded by the trial court in this case to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh is illegal being without jurisdiction.

6. Though the special statute, S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provided sentence of imprisonment extending to one year and fine extending to twice the cheque amount or with both, in view of the recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the contention that the trial Magistrate has no power to impose a fine of more than Rs. 5000/- cannot be disputed. That error or illegality committed by the learned Magistr