Judgment : V. BAKTHAVATSALU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act thereinafter referred to as the Act) against the accused stating that the accused have post dated cheque for rupees twenty five lakhs on 20-5-1995 and that when the cheque was presented for payment through the bankers of the complainant on 18- 11-1995, it was returned on the ground of insufficient funds and that thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the accused on 1-12-1995 and that since the defendant did not comply with the above notice the complaint is filed. ( 2 ) THE case was taken on file by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai. Before the trial Court, the complainant has examined one witness and marked Exs. P-I to P-8 On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court convicted the accused 2 and 3 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees twenty five lakhs. The Court further directed that a sum of Rupees twenty five lakhs should be-paid to the complainant as compensation. The accused preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence in C. A Nos. 10 and 13 of 1997. The appellate Court dismissing the above appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on accused 1 and 2 it is seen that accused 1 and 2 preferred separate appeals- in C. A No. 10 of 1997 and third accused preferred appeal in C. A No. 13 of 1997. The appeal filed by third accused was allowed. The accused 1 and 2 preferred revision against the said conviction and sentence. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in the grounds of revision that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the petitioners on the ground that the evidence of P. W. 1 was not corroborated by any other evidence and that the appellate Court ought to have held that non filing of authorisation letter at the time of filing the complaint was fatal and that the appellate Court ought to have seen that EX. P-10 was concocted for the purpose of the case and that Exs. P-3 and P-4 were not properly proved. P-10 was concocted for the purpose of the case and that Exs. P-3 and P-4 were not properly proved. In the additional grounds, the petitioners have stated that the trial Court is not empowered to impose fine of more than Rs. 5. 000/- and that the trial Court imposed fine of Rupees twenty five lakhs which is beyond the powers of the lower Court and that there is no prayer in the plaint for any compensation from out of the fine amount and that the accused were not questioned after having been found guilty. ( 4 ) THE point for determination is whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by manifest illegality or infirmity? ( 5 ) THE trial Court on the analysis of the entire evidence has held that accused 2 and 3 represented the first accused company and that the complainant has proved the offence against the accused. The appellate Court rejected the contention of the revision petitioners that the complainant was not authorised to file the complaint. All the contentions raised by the revision petitioners rejected by the appellate Court. The finding of the appellate Court will show that the Court has based its conclusion only on the evidence available on record and as such, I do not see any infirmity in the findings rendered by the Courts below that the accused are liable to be punished under Section 138 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE main contention of the revision petitioners is that the Judicial Magistrate is empowered to impose fine of Rs. 5000/-only and that he was not competent to impose fine of Rupees twenty five lakhs and as such, the Judicial Magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on him. It is no doubt true that Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate of first class to pass sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding Rs. 5,000/ -. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to Section 4 (2) of Cr. P. C. Sub-clause (2) to Section 4 states that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. P. C. Sub-clause (2) to Section 4 states that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon decisions of this Court and a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in support of his contention that the Magistrate can impose-sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 5000/ -. ( 7 ) IN Prabhakar v. Naresh Kumar N. Shah, it is held thus: Section 142 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act would show that notwithstanding any provision contained the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court inferior to that of the Metropolitan Magistrate can try the offence punishable under Section 142 (c ). Hence, the Magistrate concerned is the Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 29 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in view of the primary clause in Section 142 viz, not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 8 ) IT was contended by the accused in that case that the cheque amount was Rupees one lakh and that if the offence as found to have committed, the Magistrate had to impose a fine of Rupees ten lakhs and that the Magistrate has no power to impose so much fine as per Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. Honourable Mr. Justice Pratap Singh has observed in the above decision that normally, the Magistrate is empowered he shall forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. As already stated, there is no need for the Judicial Magistrate in this case to follow the above provision since he is empowered to impose fine exceeding Rs. 5. 000/- under Section 138 of the Act. ( 9 ) SECTION 357 of Cr. P. C. clearly states that when a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms a part, the Court may order the whole or any part of the fine to be paid to any person as compensation. Under the above provision, the Magistrate is empowered to order payment of compensation. The Magistrate has sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25. 02. Under the above provision, the Magistrate is empowered to order payment of compensation. The Magistrate has sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25. 02. 000/-and he directed that out of the said amount, Rupees twenty five lakhs shall be paid to the complainant. I am unable to see as to how the above order of the Magistrate is not sustainable, in law, For the reasons stated above, I hold that the contentions raised in the revision are liable to he rejected. ( 10 ) FOLLOWING the bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court report above and judgments of this Court. I hold that the Judicial Magistrate, or Metropolitan Magistrate is empowered to impose fine exceeding Rs; 5,000/ -. ( 11 ) IN the result, this Cr1. Revision Case is dismissed. The accused is entitled, to remission granted by the Government if he is eligible. Revision dismissed.