JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands directed by the petitioner herein against the impugned order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-II, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on 27.8.2015 in case No. 125-IV/2015, whereby the learned trial Court in sequel to the accused pleading guilty to the relevant charge convicted him for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, also thereupon it imposed upon him a sentence of fine equivalent to the amount borne on the dishonored Negotiable instrument. Also a perusal of the impugned order discloses qua the accused on depositing the fine amount before the learned trial Court thereupon the complainant/petitioner herein standing entitled to receive it as compensation. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/petitioner has here before submitted with vigor qua the sentence afore-stated imposed upon the convict/accused being amenable for interference by this Court, its not holding concurrence with the mandate of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits qua the sentence of imprisonment prescribed therein also standing imposable upon the convict besides sentence of fine constituted in a sum double than the one borne in the dishonored instrument also being statutorily imposable upon the accused/convict whereas the aforesaid sentences remaining un-imposed upon the convict by the learned Magistrate, renders the impugned order to beget an open infraction of its mandate. However the aforesaid submission is not amenable for acceptance significantly when the provisions of section 138 of the Act holding there within a mandate upon the Magistrate concerned, to on proven commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act, his holding a discretionary jurisdiction to alternatively impose a sentence of imprisonment upon the convict for a term which may extend up to 2 years also his holding jurisdiction to in alternate thereto impose a sentence of fine upon him which may extend upto twice the amount of the dis-honoured cheque besides he holds jurisdiction to impose both the aforesaid sentences upon the accused/convict. The statutory discretionary empowerment conferred upon the Judicial Magistrate concerned to impose the aforesaid alternative sentences upon the convict or to impose all the sentences conjointly upon the convict does render the imposition by the learned Magistrate upon the accused/convict a sentence of fine equivalent to the amount borne on the dishonored Negotiable instrument to warrant no interference, conspicuously when the statutory discretion vested in him to impose a sentence of fine upon the convict extending to double the amount borne on the dis-honoured Negotiable instrument stands not couched in a mandatory phraseology rather stands couched in a directory phraseology whereupon the imposition of a sentence of fine equivalent to the cheque amount upon the convict/accused by the learned Magistrate concerned does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity unless evidence stood adduced qua his while exercising the apposite statutory discretion his evidently acting with malafides. Significantly, when the aforesaid evidence remained un-adduced here at, the statutory discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in imposing the pronounced sentence upon the accused is un-bereft of any taint. 3. Further more the statutory discretion vested in the Magistrate concerned in the imposition of alternative sentences aforesaid upon the convict, in exercise whereof he imposed upon the accused/convict the impugned sentence of fine also remains undemonstrated by the counsel for the complainant to stand exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. Contrarily with the Magistrate concerned while under the impugned award imposing upon the convict/accused a sentence of fine equivalent in a sum borne on the dis-honoured negotiable instrument hers also ordering qua on its deposit its standing released to the complainant besides given the factum qua the convict/accused pleading guilty to the relevant charge whereupon consumption of time which would stand otherwise consumed by the learned trial Court for concluding the trial stood curtailed whereupon also hence the revisionist/complainant suffered no inconvenience, does also constrain this Court to record an inference of the statutory discretion exercised by the Magistrate concerned to impose the impugned sentence of fine upon the convict standing exercised in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 4. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Impugned order stands maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.