Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 478 (MP)

Sunil Datta v. Vishal Singh Chandel

2011-04-20

T.P.SHARMA

body2011
ORDER T.P. Sharma, J. 1. By this revision, the Petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 22/2008, whereby the Sessions Judge has enhanced the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Complaint Case No. 62/07 vide order dated 24-1-2008 to Rs. 60,000/-. 2. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of the Courts below. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that while enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 500/- passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') to Rs. 60,000/- the Sessions Judge had committed illegality and aforesaid order of enhancement is not sustainable under the law. 4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the order impugned and submits that the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has rightly enhanced the fine amount in accordance with Section 138 of the Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the Respondent has also filed application for award of compensation in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), but the same has not been considered by the Revisional Court and has not awarded any amount of compensation to the present Respondent. 5. In order to examine the legality and propriety of the order/judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class/Special Magistrate under Sections 397 and 399 of the Code, the Revisional Court/Sessions Judge is empowered to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed by the Court below and also empowered to correct such illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the such Court. 6. While examining the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur passed in Complaint Case No. 62/07 vide order dated 24-1-2008 whereby Special Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class has imposed fine of Rs. 500/- to the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, the Revisional Court was empowered to correct legality and propriety of imposing fine, even in case of inadequacy of sentence of fine awarded to the Petitioner. 500/- to the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, the Revisional Court was empowered to correct legality and propriety of imposing fine, even in case of inadequacy of sentence of fine awarded to the Petitioner. In accordance with Section 29(2) of the Code, Judicial Magistrate First Class is competent to pass the sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or of both. Section 29(2) of the Code reads as under: 29. Sentences which Magistrates may pass.-- (1) *** *** *** (2) The Court of a Magistrate of the First class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or of both. (3) *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** 7. While correcting the illegality and impropriety of the sentence imposed by the Special Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, the Revisional Court was competent to correct the sentence of fine only to the extent of competency of such Judicial Magistrate First Class to impose fine, i.e., to the extent of only ten thousand rupees, but while correcting such illegality and impropriety the Revisional Court has imposed fine of Rs. 60,000/- upon the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, for which the Revisional Court was not competent to impose such fine. 8. The Revisional Court has committed illegality by enhancing the fine of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 60,000/- and same is not sustainable under the law. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. Sentence of fine of Rs. 60,000/- imposed upon the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, i.e., within competency of the Judicial Magistrate First Class in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Code and same is awarded to the Respondent as compensation in accordance with Section 357(1) of the Code. Fine paid in excess to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- by the Petitioner shall be refunded to him.