Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 168 (AP)

AMI SANAG MICROMATION LTD. v. STATE OF A. P.

2000-03-07

VAMAN RAO

body2000
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. No representation on behalf of 2nd respondent. 2. These petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seek quashing of orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl. M. P. Nos. 910, 912 and 911 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 363, 365 and 364 of 1999 respectively under which a condition for suspending the sentence, the petitioners were directed to deposit part of the fine amount amounting to Rs. 25,000/- immediately and to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and to deposit the balance of fine amount in two equal instalments on the dates mentioned in the order. 3. It may be seen that the petitioners have been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the first petitioner-company has been sentenced to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- and in default the 2nd petitioner has been directed to undergo S I for a period of three months and the 2nd petitioner-accused No. 2 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,75,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The petitioners-accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 363 to 365 of 1999 and also filed miscellaneous petitions for suspending the sentence. It is on these petitions that the above orders have been passed. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the Magistrate was incompletent to impose fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/- in view of the provisions in Section 29(4) of Cr. P.C. 5. In regard to compensation, it is pointed out that in view of the provision under Section 357 of Cr. P.C., if the Magistrate had imposed the sentence of fine, the compensation could have been awarded only to an extent of a part of fine amount so imposed and that under sub-section (3) of Section 357 of Cr. P.C., if the compensation was to be awarded without any restriction that could have been done only when fine was not imposed as a part of sentence. 6. In this case, the trial Court having imposed a fine amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on A1 and Rs. P.C., if the compensation was to be awarded without any restriction that could have been done only when fine was not imposed as a part of sentence. 6. In this case, the trial Court having imposed a fine amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on A1 and Rs. 1,75,000/- on A2 had directed that out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In view of the provisions referred to above, the learned Sessions Judge's order directing the deposit of the huge amount as a condition for suspending the sentence appears unjustified. 7. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 2 Andh LD (Cri) 801 : (1999 Cri LJ 4606), has held that in respect of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate cannot impose fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. However, it has also been observed that the Magistrate has the power to award compensation to alievate the grievance of the complainant. This could obviously be done only under the provisions under Section 357 of Cr. P.C. referred to above. 8. Thus, taking any view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge in imposing a condition of deposit of Rs. 25,000/- initially and the balance amount of fine in two equal instalments appears unreasonable. The orders of the learned Sessions Judge shall stand modified to the extent that the petitioners are not required to deposit further amount towards fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. With the above directions, these petitions are disposed of. Order accordingly.