ORDER
Rajendra Prasad, J.
1. Common arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioner. Common question of law is involved in both the cases. Hence, common order
2. Both the petitions by the accused filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.praying the Court to set aside the orders dated 8.9.2003 passed inC.C.Nos. 3514/1998 and 3513/1998 respectively, on the file of the CivilJudge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Madikeri, wherein the learned Magistratehad ordered for issue of fine levy warrant against the accused underSections 418 and 421 Cr.P.C., challenging the legality and proprietyof the orders impugned.
3. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri P.K. Ponnappa,learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, and has also carefullyperused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts overthe rival contentions raised.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contendedthat the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned areillegal and unsustainable. The learned Counsel also contended that theNegotiable Instruments Act is self - contained enactment and onecannot have recourse to the provisions of Cr.P.C. at all. He alsocontended that in view of the statutory provisions of Sections 357 and 421 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in passingthe orders impugned. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for allowingthe petitions.
5. From the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner hadbeen prosecuted on the basis of two private complaints for the offenceunder Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.Nos. 3513 and 3514/1998,particularly alleging that the accused had issued cheques for Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- respectively in favour of the complainant and the cheques had been dishonoured and hence the accused was stated to have committed and was punishable for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After full dressed trial, in both the cases, the learned Magistrate had recorded a finding of guilt of the accused for the said offences and had sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the cases, in default, to suffer S.I. for a period of six months. The learned Magistrate had also ordered compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-and Rs. 20,50,000/- to the complainant. The accused had carried two appeals before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr.A Nos. 23 and 24/ 2002. The complainant had also filed revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr.R.P.Nos. 42 and 41/2002, and after hearing, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed both the said appeals and had also allowed the revision petitions and directed payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. The accused, feeling aggrieved by the said orders, had filed revision petitions in Crl.R.P. Nos. 453/2003 and 454/2003 before this Court. This Court had passed an order of suspension of sentence with a direction to the accused to deposit compensation of the fine amount within one month from 22.5.2003. The accused had failed to deposit the said amounts as directed and as such, as per the order of this Court dated 11.8.2003, the interim order of suspension of sentence came to be vacated. Later on, the complainant had approached the learned Magistrate for giving effect to the judgments of the Courts below. The learned Magistrate had passed orders on 8.9.2003 issuing warrants under Sections 418 and 421 Cr.P.C. These two orders are under challenge before this Court.
6. The fact in issue falls into a very narrow compass. It is the thrust of the petitioner that the compensation amount will not form part of the fine amount and as such, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in ordering issue of warrants even in respect of compensation amount. It is a settled principle of law that the Courts of law will have to interpret the law keeping in mind the intention and philosophy of the legislature and the Courts of law cannot afford to legislate, but are required to expound the law.
7. From the statutory provisions of the N.I. Act, it is clear that the learned Magistrate, while imposing the sentence, is required to impose the sentence of fine, which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate had recorded a finding of conviction and had imposed the sentences of imprisonment and fine, and also the compensation amount. The learned Sessions Judge had also passed a similar order. Having regard to the tenor of the said orders, it is clear that the courts below had directed payment of compensation amount out of the fine amount, though it had not been specifically so mentioned. The provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. enables a Court to award compensation to compensate an injury or loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the statutory provisions of the N.I. Act., in the opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded in these cases will have to be treated as fine amount for the purpose of recovery of the same from the accused. As such, one cannot taken recourse to the provisions of Section 357 so as to defeat the object of the statutory provisions of the N.I. Act in this regard. Possibly, one could afford to do so in the absence of specific statutory provisions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles of law in this regard, this Court is of the opinion that the orders impugned the legal and proper and there are no merits in the petitions.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are dismissed without being admitted.