TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition was moved, learned counsel confined his contention to the question whether a Judicial Magistrate of first class could have imposed a sentence of fine beyond Rs.5,000/- in view of the limitation contained in Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). As the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr. {1999 (7) SCC 510} is in support of the said contention we issued notice to the respondent mentioning that it is limited to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the decision of this Court to the effect that power of the Judicial Magistrate of first class is limited in the matter of imposing a sentence of fine of Rs.5000/- is not correct in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred by any other law. We would first consider the effect of the non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the NI Act. The section reads thus: 142. Cognizance of offences.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thus, the non-obstante limb provided in Section 142 of the NI Act is not intended to expand the powers of a Magistrate of first class beyond what is fixed in Chapter III of the Code. Section 29, which falls within Chapter III of the Code, contains a limit for a Magistrate of first class in the matter of imposing a sentence as noticed above i.e. if the sentence is imprisonment it shall not exceed 3 years and if the sentence is fine (even if it is part of the sentence) it shall not exceed Rs.5000/-. Two decisions holding a contrary view have been brought to our notice. The first is that of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in A.Y. Prabhakar vs. Naresh Kumar N. Shah {1994 Madras Law Journal (Crl.) 91 = 1995 Company Cases (Vol.83) 191....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Code concerns only with offences under the Indian Penal Code but sub-section (2) says that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions of the Code unless any other enactment contains provisions regulating the manner or place of such investigation, inquiry or trial or how otherwise such offences should be dealt with. This means, if an other enactment does not regulate the manner or place of trial etc. of any particular offence the provisions of the Code will continue to control the investigation or inquiry or trial of such offence. Now Section 5 of the Code has to be seen. 5.Saving.- Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted from the statute book when jurisdiction to try the offences under the Essential Commodities Act has been conferred on Special Court which is deemed to be a Court of Sessions.) Another instance is, Section 36 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act which says that Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code it shall be lawful for any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act in excess of the powers under the Code. A similar provision is incorporated in Section 21 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act also. Those instances bear ample illustrations as to how the legislature had exercised when it wanted the limitations specified under Section 29 of the Code to be surm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the complainant must be compensated with his loss he can resort to the course indicated in Section 357 of the Code. This aspect has been dealt with in Bhaskarans case (supra) as follows: However, the Magistrate in such cases can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to Section 357(3) of the Code. It is well to remember that this Court has emphasised the need for making liberal use of that provision (Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 (4) SCC 551). No limit is mentioned in the sub-section and therefore, a Magistrate can award any sum as compensation. Of course while fixing the quantum of such compensation the Magistrate has to consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. ....