D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) BOTH the criminal revisions are taken together for disposal arising out of common judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, though the conviction of the appellant Ram Kishore Mishra (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2004) recorded by the Trial Court in C33/96 for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was affirmed but the compensation imposed upon the accused jointly to the tune of Rs. 2,42,000 was reduced to the fine of Rs. 5,000 upholding his sentence being one year rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the complaint Case No. C33/96 by the complainant Raj Narayan Pradhan (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.836 of 2004) was that Ram Kishore Mishra (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2004) and one Lalit Kumar Thakur (since dead), were Secretary and Treasurer respectively in Pandra Co-operative House Construction Committee. They jointly delivered a Cheque No.931793 of Rs.1,21,000 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Argora Colony Ranchi, in favour of the complainant Raj Narayan Pradhan. When the complainant tendered the cheque in question in the Bank, it was returned unpaid on 20.12.1995 with the endorsement "insufficient fund". Complainant sent lawyer's notice on 29.12.2005 to both the accused Ram Kishore Mishra and Lalit Kumar Thakur which was received by them on 1.1.1996 but they did not opt to repay the debt amount within the statutory period which was due to the complainant and having been dissatisfied with their reply, the complainant Raj Narayan Pradhan instituted complaint case No. C33/96 in the Court of C.J.M. alleging inter alia, that the accused person deliberately and willfully neglected to pay his dues. Both the accused Ram Kishore Mishra and Lalit Kumar Thakur were put on trial after framing of charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the complaint could be able to prove the charge successfully under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against both the ac cused. After hearing the parties, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,42,000 under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure jointly which was double of the cheque amount under provision of law. Having been dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them, one of the convicts Ram Kishore Mishra preferred criminal appeal No. 51 of 2000 before the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against the complainant being respondent. The co-convict Lalit Kumar Thakur was made proforma respondent. By a detailed order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by way of rigorous imprisonment recorded against the appellant Ram Kishore Mishra (petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2004) though was affirmed in appeal by the compensation amount of Rs. 2,42,000 was re duced to the fine of Rs. 5,000 by observing that Judicial Magistrate cannot award a sentence of imprisonment exceeding three years and fine exceeding Rs. 5,000 and that learned Trial Magistrate exceeded the limit of fine which required interference. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 836 of 2004 submitted that the appellate Court below has grossly erred by not granting compensation to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which is more clarified in a decision in (2001) 2 S.C.C. 595.
(3.) LEARNED counsel suggested that the appellate Court while reducing quantum of fine to the extent of Rs.5,000, though was correct in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in respect of imposition of fine but the appellate Court erred by not shifting the balance amount as compensation amount to be paid by the accused persons jointly under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;