LexPANKAJBHAL NAGJIBHAI PATEL versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ~ '.._ ~ PANKAJBHAl NAGJIBHAI PATEL A v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. JANUARY 12, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Sections 138 and 142/Sections 5, 29(2), 325 and 357-Scope of power of Magistrate of First Class for imposition of fine-Held, the power cannot exceed the iimitation imposed under section 29 of the Code; however, no C limitation imposed under sectiof! 357 for award of compensation. Appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 83,000 by Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The conviction D and sentence were confirmed by Sessions Judge and High Court. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that a Judicial Magistrate cannot impose a fine beyond Rs. 5000 in view of the limitation contained under section 29(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The respondent-State, on the other hand, contended that the power of E the Judicial Magistrate is not limited by section 29(2) of Cr.P.C. in view of the non-obstante clause contained in section 142 of the Act; and that section 5 Cr.P.C. mandated that nothing in the Code would affect any special jurisdiction or power conferred by any other law. Disposing of the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. The non-obstante clause provided in Section 142 offhe Negotiable Instruments Act is not intended to expand the powers of a Magistrate of First Class beyond what is fixed in Chapter III of Cr.P.C. Section 29, which falls within Chapter III of Cr. P.C., contains a limit for a G Magistrate of First Class in the matter of imposing a sentence 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. (341-A-Bl 1.2. Non-application of the Code on "any special jurisdiction or power H 337 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R. A conferred by any other law for the time being in force" as stated under section 5 Cr.P.C. is limited to the area where such special jurisdiction or " power is conferred. Section 142 of the Act has not conferred any special jurisdiction or power on a judicial magistrate of First Class. That section ... has only excluded the powers of other Magistrates from trying the offence . , B under section 138 of the Act. In the absence of any provision in the Act, no specia! power can be read into it as having conferred on a Magistrate of First """ I Class in the matter of imposition of sentence. (342-C; 343-BI "It 1.3. Whenever a Magistrate of First Class feels that the complainant should be compensated, he can, after imposing a term of imprisonment, c award compensation to the complainant for which no limit is prescribed in section 357 of Cr.P.C. 1343-FI 1.4. While retaining the sentence of imprisonment of six months, the ~ fine portion from the sentence is deleted and the appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 83,000 to the respondent-complainant. The said amount D shall be deposited with the trial court within six months failing which the trial court shall resort to the steps permitted by law to realise it from the appellant. 1344-C( K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an & Anr., (19991 7 SCC 510, relied on. E A. Y. Prabhakar v. Naresh Kumar N. Shah, (19941 Madras Law Journal (Crl.) 91 = (19951 Company Cases (Vol. 83) 191 and K.P. Sahdevan v. TK. Sreedharan, ( 19961 2 Criminal Law Journal 1223 = 1996 I Kerala Law Times 40, referred to. F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 200 I. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 145 of2000. G A.P. Mayee, Rucha Mayee and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair for the Appellant. ...,. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Mukta Sharma, Ms. Reena Singh and Anil Kumar Shanna for the Respondents. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by x } ...... ' P.N. PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THOMAS, J.] 339 THOMAS, J. Leave granted. A Judicial Magistrate of first class, after convicting an accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 83,000. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge A in appeal and the revision filed by the convicted person was dismissed by B the High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.