Cheque dishonour sentencing: Section 357(3) cannot convert fine into compensation, and Section 143 overrides the general fine ceiling.

In a Section 138 cheque dishonour prosecution, compensation linked to a sentence of fine must be ordered under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC; Section 357(3) applies only where the sentence does not include fine, so converting a fine into compensation under that provision was impermissible. The special fine regime in Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which permits a Magistrate to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, prevails over the general ceiling in Section 29 CrPC. The appellate modification was set aside and the trial court's conviction and fine order were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, compensation could be directed under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after imposing only fine; (ii) Whether the ceiling on fine under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricted the Magistrate from imposing fine beyond the cheque amount regime contemplated by Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, compensation could be directed under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after imposing only fine;

Analysis: The compensatory scheme in cheque dishonour cases proceeds on Section 357(1)(b) where a sentence of fine is imposed. Section 357(3) applies only when the sentence does not include fine. Since the conviction here resulted in imposition of fine and not a sentence independent of fine, conversion of the fine amount into compensation under Section 357(3) was held impermissible. The statutory scheme and the object of Section 138 support compensation linked to fine under Section 357(1)(b), not under Section 357(3).

Conclusion: The direction converting fine into compensation under Section 357(3) was illegal and without jurisdiction; compensation in such cases is referable to Section 357(1)(b).

Issue (ii): Whether the ceiling on fine under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricted the Magistrate from imposing fine beyond the cheque amount regime contemplated by Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 creates a special regime for offences under Section 138 and permits the Magistrate to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, even where the matter proceeds in the manner of summons trial. The special provision prevails over the general ceiling under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate's power to impose fine was therefore not curtailed by the general limitation relied upon in appeal.

Conclusion: The special statutory regime under Section 143 governed and the general fine ceiling under Section 29 did not bar imposition of the fine imposed in the case.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the appellate modification was set aside, and the trial court's conviction and fine order stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 138 cheque dishonour prosecution, compensation can be awarded only in the manner permitted by Section 357(1)(b) when fine is imposed, and Section 357(3) cannot be used to convert such fine into compensation; the special fine regime under Section 143 overrides the general limitation in Section 29.

---