2001 (1) TMI 922 - SC - Companies Law

Whether a Judicial Magistrate of first class could have imposed a sentence of fine beyond Rs.5, 000/- in view of the limitation contained in Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Held that - If proceedings are so submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325(1) of the Code it is for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass such judgment sentence or order in the case as he thinks fit. It is so provided in sub-section (3) thereof. Even that apart a Magistrate who thinks it fit that the complainant must be compensated with his loss he can resort to the course indicated in Section 357 of the Code. Thus even if the trial was before a Court of Magistrate of the first class in respect of a cheque which covers an amount exceeding Rs.5000/- the Court has power to award compensation to be paid to the complainant. Thus this question does not now pose any practical difficulty. Whenever a magistrate of the first class feels that the complainant should be compensated he can after imposing a term of imprisonment award compensation to the complainant for which no limit is prescribed in Section 357 of the Code. In the result while retaining the sentence of imprisonment of six months we delete the fine portion from the sentence and direct the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.83, 000/- to the respondent-complainant. The said amount shall be deposited with the trial court within six months failing which the trial court shall resort to the steps permitted by law to realise it from the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the limitation on the power of a Judicial Magistrate of first class to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5,000.
- Analysis of the non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and its impact on the limitation imposed by Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Examination of the applicability of Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the special jurisdiction or power conferred by other laws.

Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The case involved a convicted person appealing the sentence imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of first class under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue centered around whether the Magistrate had the authority to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5,000 as per the limitation in Section 29(2) of the Code. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, which highlighted the restriction on the Magistrate's power to impose fines beyond Rs.5,000. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate's sentencing power is limited by this provision, even when confirmed by higher courts.

Non-obstante Clause in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The Court examined the non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which specifies limitations on the cognizance of offenses under Section 138. The clause restricts the powers of Magistrates in specific aspects related to the offense, such as the manner of taking cognizance and the jurisdiction of trying the offense. The Court clarified that this clause does not expand the powers of a Magistrate of first class beyond what is outlined in Chapter III of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Applicability of Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Regarding the construction of Section 5 of the Code, the Court analyzed its scope in relation to special jurisdiction or powers conferred by other laws. The Court highlighted that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not confer any special jurisdiction or power on a Judicial Magistrate of first class. By comparing with provisions in other enactments like the Essential Commodities Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court emphasized the absence of similar provisions in the NI Act. The Court concluded that in cases where a Magistrate believes a severe sentence is warranted, provisions like Section 325 and Section 357 of the Code provide avenues for appropriate action, including awarding compensation to the complainant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the sentence of imprisonment but deleted the fine portion, directing the appellant to pay compensation to the respondent-complainant. The judgment clarified the limitations on a Magistrate's sentencing powers and highlighted alternative avenues for addressing specific case scenarios within the legal framework.