VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur passed in Crl. M. P. No. 387 of 1997 in Crl. A. No. 485 of 1999 dated 23-9-1999 under which the learned Sessions Judge while dealing with the application for suspending the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court having convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, directed the petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 10,000. 00 with two sureties each for a like sum and further directed the petitioner to pay half of the balance of the fine amount of Rs. 65,000. 00 in two instalments. ( 3 ) IT is this part of the direction requiring the petitioner to deposit half of the fine amount of Rs. 65,000. 00 in two instalments as a condition for suspending the sentence imposed by the Court below, which is now sought to be questioned in this petition. ( 4 ) THE facts germane to this petition may be stated briefly as follows. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 66,038. 00 , out of which the learned Magistrate directed that the complainant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 65,000. 00. The conteniton of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that imposition of sentence of fine of Rs. 66,038. 00 is illegal being in contravention of Section 29 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short "cr. P. C.), and as such the order of the learned Sessisons Judge directing the petitioner to deposit half of that fine amount as a condition for suspending the execution of the sentence is also illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, ( (1) 1999 Supreme Court on Line Case No. 590) : (1990 Cri LJ 4606), a copy of which has been made available to this Court now. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, ( (1) 1999 Supreme Court on Line Case No. 590) : (1990 Cri LJ 4606), a copy of which has been made available to this Court now. In that judgment the Supreme Court has very clearly held that the powers of the Magistrate in respect of imposing sentence of fine are controlled by the provisions in Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. and that in no case can a Magistrate impose a fine exceeding Rs. 5000. 00 as provided under Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. Sri. V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand contends that the restriction as to the quantum of fine which a Magistrate can impose under Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. does not apply to award of compenstion to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran s case (1 supra) to the effect that the Magistrate can award compensation under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. , without regard to pecuniary limits in respect of imposing fine under Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IT is true that if a Magistrate proposes to proceed under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. , for awarding compensation to the complainant, the question of pecuniary limits as contemplated under Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. , being applicable does not arise. But the real question, is, once the Magistrate proceeds to impose fine as a part of sentence, the quantum of fine that he can impose is necessarily restricted by the provisions under Section 29 (2) of Cr. P. C. It is further pertinent to note that option to award compensation under Section 357, Cr. P. C. without reference to pecuniary limits for imposing fine is available only when fine is not a part of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. In this case as seen from para 16 of the judgment of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, the Magistrate specifically indicated that he sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 66,038. 00. In this case as seen from para 16 of the judgment of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, the Magistrate specifically indicated that he sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 66,038. 00. There can be no manner of doubt that the direction of the learned Magistrate to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000. 00 to the complainant was only out of the fine so imposed. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the Magistrate, used the word fine , that must be read as compenstion as contemplated under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. , has to be mentioned only to be rejected. When the Magistrate specifically proceeded to impose fine, it can be construed only as fine imposed under the powers vested in the Magistrate in that behalf. A fine so imposed cannot be equated with compensation awarded under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. In fact sub-section (3) of Section 357 of Cr. P. C. makes it abundantly clear that the question of awarding compensation under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. would arise only when fine does not form part of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. It is therefore, apparent that the fine imposed by the learned Magistrate is certainly in excess of the pecuniary limits restricting his powers in that behalf. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge imposing a condition of depositing half of the balance amount of Rs. 65,000. 00 as a condition precedent for suspending the sentence cannot be sustained. Under these circumstances, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the order dated 23-9-1999 in Crl. M. P. N. 387 of 1999 in Crl. A. No. 485 of 1999 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same is accordingly quashed. The requirement as to deposit of the amount by the petitioner towards payment of fine shall be limited to total amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 for which the petitioner is given ten days to deposit. It is made clear that the observations made above are on the basis of the judgment pronounced and the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate. The requirement as to deposit of the amount by the petitioner towards payment of fine shall be limited to total amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 for which the petitioner is given ten days to deposit. It is made clear that the observations made above are on the basis of the judgment pronounced and the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate. It does not preclude the learned Sesisons Judge to deal with the matter while hearing the appeal in such manner as he consider proper in accordance with law. ( 6 ) WITH the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.