Fine ceiling under criminal procedure cannot be expanded by special statute, but compensation may still be awarded for cheque dishonour.

A special statute's non-obstante clause did not enlarge a Judicial Magistrate of the first class's sentencing power beyond the fine ceiling fixed by the Code; the fine under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not exceed the limit in Section 29(2) of the Code. In contrast, compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code could be awarded without that ceiling, and may be used to address the complainant's loss where a fine is impermissible. The sentencing framework therefore permitted deletion of the excessive fine and substitution of compensation, while preserving the imprisonment component.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation on fine under Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricted a Judicial Magistrate of the first class from imposing a fine exceeding Rs. 5,000 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether the complainant could instead be granted compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation on fine under Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricted a Judicial Magistrate of the first class from imposing a fine exceeding Rs. 5,000 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to operate only for the specified procedural aspects, namely cognizance on complaint, limitation for filing the complaint, and forum of trial. It did not enlarge the sentencing power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class beyond the limits fixed by Chapter III of the Code. Since Section 29(2) expressly capped the fine imposable by such a Magistrate, the special provision in Section 142 could not be read as conferring a wider power to impose fine. The Court also distinguished the instances where Parliament had expressly overridden Section 29(2) in other enactments, noting that no provision existed in the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion: The fine of Rs. 83,000 was not sustainable; the Magistrate had no power to impose fine beyond Rs. 5,000 under the governing scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant could instead be granted compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court treated Section 357(3) as enabling a Magistrate to award compensation without the monetary ceiling applicable to fine under Section 29(2). It also noted that where a Magistrate considers a sentence beyond his own power to be necessary, the Code provides a mechanism for committal to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325. In cheque dishonour cases, compensation could be used to alleviate the complainant's loss even where the fine component was impermissible.

Conclusion: Compensation of Rs. 83,000 in favour of the complainant was permissible in place of the impermissible fine.

Final Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment was maintained, the fine component was deleted, and compensation to the complainant was substituted, leaving the appellant successful only to the extent of the sentencing correction.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-obstante clause in a special statute does not enlarge the sentencing power of a Magistrate unless the statute expressly overrides the general limitation; in the absence of such express enlargement, compensation may be awarded under the Code even where fine cannot exceed the statutory ceiling.

---