Bangalore District Court
And Has Paid Rs.3 vs No.1 Being The Company Has Committed The ... on 4 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, Court of
Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore(SCCH20)
Present:Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.M.M.
Dated this the 4th day of August 2022
C.C.No.10317/2014
1. Sl.No. of the case C.C. No.10317/2014
2. The date of Institution 14.03.2014
3. The date of commencement
of the evidence 05.10.2015
4. Name of the Complainant : S.G.Electrical and Stampings
No.63, 11th cross,
Rajgopalangara Main Road,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore
Represented by its Managing
partner, Sri.T.R.Shivakumar
S/o Rudraradya
Aged about 47 years,
(By Pleader Sri.H.G.Laxmana Gowda)
5. Name of the Accused : 1. Magna Motors,
No.687, 2nd phase,
Peenya Industrial Area
Maruthi Extension,
Bangalore.
2.Rajaram Hariram
SCCH-20. 2 CC. No.10317/2014
Partner, Magna Motors,
Major,
No.39, 9th cross,
Saneevininagar, Mudalapalya,
Bangalore72
(got acquitted by order of Hon'be
Appellate court in Cr.Appeal No.
25098/2017 and No.25097/2017)
3.Anitha H.S.
W/o B.S.Arun Kumar
Major,
Partner, Magna Motors,
No.173, Defense Colony,
Sahakaranagara,
Bangalore - 68.
(A3 By pleader K.Suresh)
6.The offence complained of or proved: Under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
7.Plea of the accused on her examination: Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order Accused No.1 and 3 are
convicted
9.Date of such order 04.08.2022
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging the offence punishable Under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act 1881.
SCCH-20. 3 CC. No.10317/2014 The case was earlier disposed off on 07.06.2017 where the accused No.2 and 3 were convicted to pay the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ to the complainant. Against this order of the conviction, the Accused No.2 and 3 approached the Appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.25098/2017 and No.25097/2017 respectively, where the accused No.2 got compromised the matter with the complainant and has paid Rs.3,00,000/, which was alleged on his part. The accused No.3 got remanded the matter where there was a direction by the Hon'ble Appellate Court to this court that the matter should be reconsidered and decided, taking into consideration the fact, whether the accused No.1 being the company has committed the offence and whether the accused No.3 is vicariously liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. Thus the complainant was subjected to cross examination by the counsel for the accused No.3 and the following judgment.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case is that;
SCCH-20. 4 CC. No.10317/2014 That for the legally recoverable debt the accused No.2 and 3 on behalf of accused No.1 issued 5 cheques each for Rs.1,00,000/ which came to be dishonored as funds insufficient. The legal notice was issued on 10.01.2014 which were returned as not claimed on 20.01.2014. But the accused No.3 gave reply notice by denying the liability and hence the present complaint.
3. The accused No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and were enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read over to the accused and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C was also recorded, by my learned predecessor, where the accused No.2 and 3 both have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant's partner examined himself as PW1 and got marked 19 documents on his behalf. The Accused did not lead any evidence on their behalf.
4. Heard from the counsel for the complainant and accused and perused the materials on record.
5. The following points arise for my determination:
SCCH-20. 5 CC. No.10317/2014
1. Whether the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: That the complainant is the registered partnership firm dealing with electronic items and the accused No.1 is the partnership firm where the accused No.2 and 3 are partners. That the accused persons are the customers of the complainant and the complainant was supplying electric items to the accused company on credit basis. That as of in the year 2013, the accused were liable to pay balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/ and hence accused No.2 and 3 on behalf of accused No.1 issued five post dated cheques bearing No. 132772 dated 15.09.2013, No.13773 dated 24.09.2013, No.132775 dated 28.09.2013, No.132771 dated 05.10.2013 and No.132774 dated 12.10.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/ each and total SCCH-20. 6 CC. No.10317/2014 amount of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on SBI, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate Branch, Bangalore to complainant which came to be dishonored as funds insufficient. The legal notice was issued on 10.01.2014 which were returned as not claimed by accused No.2 on 20.01.2014. But the accused No.3 gave reply notice by denying her the liability and hence the present complaint.
8. In order to prove the allegation, the managing partner of the complainant company got examined himself as PW1 and has produced 19 documents on his behalf. The Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the cheques bearing No.132772 dated 15.09.2013, No.13773 dated 24.09.2013, No.132775 dated 28.09.2013, No.132771 dated 05.10.2013 and No.132774 dated 12.10.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/ each and total amount of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on SBI, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate Branch, Bangalore. The said cheque has been dishonored on 12.12.2013 as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10 as "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.11 is the copy of the legal notice dated 10.01.2014, demanding the payment of SCCH-20. 7 CC. No.10317/2014 cheque amount from the accused and are sent as per Ex.P12 to P.16 postal receipt and the acknowledgment marked as per Ex.P.17 & P.18 and notice is marked as Ex.P.19. All these documents are in support of the transaction in between the complainant and the accused. The complaint is filed on 14.03.2014, which is absolutely in time as stipulated under section 138 of the NI Act. All these documents comply with section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and depict that the accused had transaction with the complainant and are in due to the complainant, for which the Ex.P1 to P.5 cheque are issued, which came to be dishonored and thus the present complaint is filed. Therefore, the complainant has complied with the requirements as enumerated under section 138 of the NI Act.
9. There is a presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for discharging of an antecedent liability. But this is a rebuttable presumption. Thus, it is to be seen now that whether the accused rebuts the said presumption SCCH-20. 8 CC. No.10317/2014 or not by raising a probable defence.
10. It is the defence of the accused No.3, that accused No.3 was the partner of the accused No.1 company and used to sign the blank cheques as suggested by the accused No.2, who was another partner of the said company. That the accused No.3 has resigned to the said accused company as of 31.03.2012 and the accused No.2 has misused the said cheques and the complainant has filled up the said cheques as per his whims and fancies. That no document is produced by the complainant to show the purchase order of the transit. That the complainant has not produced any document to show that the complainant is a partnership firm and the PW1 having no knowledge, his version as to the case cannot be believed. That the cheques were issued as security as against the sale of goods and the accused No.2 colluding with the complainant have misused the said cheques. Accordingly has sought for dismissal of the complaint and acquit her of the alleged offence.
11. As stated above the accused No.2 has already SCCH-20. 9 CC. No.10317/2014 compromised with the complainant by paying Rs.3,00,000/. The matter is remanded with a direction to decide whether the accused No.1 has committed the offence or not. The accused No.3 has also submitted that the complaint ought to had been amended for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ since the matter is settled in between the complainant and the accused No.2. It is settled principle that if one accused admits the guilt, the other accused cannot be made liable to admit his guilt with respect to the same offence. Thus the law provides the power to magistrate to convict the accused with the fine amount of double the cheque amount. The alleged cheque amount tunes to Rs.5,00,000/ and therefore court has power to convict the accused if guilt is proved to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/. In this situation the liability admitted by the accused No.2 does not empower the complainant for not seeking this court to award a compensation of the double the cheque amount if guilt is proved. Therefore though the PW1 during his crossexamination admits that he his disposing before this court, with respect to the cheque of Rs.6,00,000/ where Rs.3,00,000/ has been already paid, does SCCH-20. 10 CC. No.10317/2014 not bar the complainant to get compensation for double the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/.
12. The accused No.3 is not denying the fact that she was partner of the accused No.1 company. She is also not denying the signature on the cheque Ex.P.1 to P.5. The main defence is that of the cheques were misused by the accused No.2 who used to get signature of this accused to the cheques which were blank. That she has resigned to accused company as the partner as on 31.03.2013, which she has replied to the demand notice issued by the complainant. But this accused No.3 has not lead evidence in this regard nor has produced any document to show her resignation to the accused No.1 company. The counsel for accused relies upon the judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325 in "Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G Hegde" Wherein it is held that the accused need not step into the witness box and may discharge the burden based on the materials already brought on record. But there is only a formal suggestion that the accused No.3 has left the job SCCH-20. 11 CC. No.10317/2014 for which no document is produced by her either during cross examination of the PW1 nor has stepped into the witness box and produced the same. These formal suggestion without any document cannot be admitted by this court unless admitted by the opponent. The PW1 has completely denied that he is not aware as to the resignation of the accused No.3 to the accused company. Therefore when the burden was upon the accused No.3 to show that she was not working in the company in the month of September 2013, in which she has failed, this court has to raise the presumption that the accused was working in the company as of 2013, on date of issueance of cheque.
13. Further the defence is regarding the issue of the cheques for security purposes. The PW1 in his cross examination admits that he is in the habit of collecting the cheques for security purpose of supplying to the customers on credit basis. But the PW1 has completely denied the said facts and nothing is elicited by the accused No.3 with regard to the issuance of the said cheques as security purpose. The SCCH-20. 12 CC. No.10317/2014 complainant has stated that the cheques were issued after auditing of their company's account with post date. Therefore nothing is brought by the accused No.3 except the suggestion that the cheques are issued as security. Therefore this version of the accused No.3 also does not hold any water.
14. The main defence is that the complainant has not produced any document to show that it is a partnership firm and that the PW1 is authorized to depose before this court. The PW1 submits that he is the managing partner of the company. The presumption is already raised in favour of the complaint and the accused is only to rebut the said presumption. Denying that the PW1 has no personal knowledge about transaction does not make this court to come to the conclusion the PW1 was not having authority or had no personal knowledge of the transaction during the course of crossexamination of PW1, no where the PW1 has desented from answering the questions put to him by the counsel for the accused No.2 or accused No.3. Even after lapse of 8 years, the PW1 was able to depose SCCH-20. 13 CC. No.10317/2014 properly before this court. which means that he had personal knowledge about the transaction and he appears to be the managing partner of the company. During the course of cross examination of PW1, the accused has suggested regarding the nature of the work conducted. No where they have denied that they have not receive any goods from the complainant but suggested that the complainant has failed to produce the delivery challans etc., Even in the reply notice Ex.P.19, the accused No.3 has stated that "the transaction of Magna motors were done and carried by Mr.Rajaram, Hariram and as such she does not know about the same". This clearly goes to show that the accused No.1 company had some transaction with the complainant company, though the accused No.3 submits that she had no knowledge about the transaction. Thus, the version of the accused in this regard cannot be believed. The accused relied upon facts that the purchase order, transit bills etc are not produced by the complainant to show the delivery of the goods. As stated above, the presumption has already arisen in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to show SCCH-20. 14 CC. No.10317/2014 before this court that she has not issued the said cheque in favour of the complainant nor has shown that the said cheques were issued as security. By suggesting that the said cheques were issued as security during the transaction, the accused is admitting transaction in between the complainant and the accused No.1 to 3. The accused could have shown before this court that there was no transaction on all these alleged dates by the complainant. The accused No.3 would have stepped in to the witness box and the true facts would have come to the notice of this court, if she was subjected to cross examination on all these aspects. The accused No.3 has failed in this matter. Though it is a well settled law as discussed supra regarding Krishna Janardhan Bhat case, the evidence Act section 114 also entitles the court to raise the presumption against the party who has not stepped into the witness box or does not produce proper evidence. Therefore when there is no sufficient material by the accused except mere suggestions, the accused No.3 cannot depend upon the weakness of the complainant. But has to place sufficient material before this court. Therefore by SCCH-20. 15 CC. No.10317/2014 admitting that the said cheques were issued as security, the accused has clearly proved that there was some transaction in between the complainant and the accused.
15. The accused further relies on the fact that the PW1 during cross examination submits that he is the owner and another time as a partner of the company. A General presumption that is raised in that the partner are always owner of the said company and only by stating that he is the owner, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the PW1 is not the managing partner of the company.
16. The accused further submits that the cheques were issued before August 2013 and she has resigned on 31.03.2013. Even the complainant has admitted that the post dated cheques were issued by the accused No.2 and 3 on behalf of the accused No.1. Thus the accused No.3 submits that the complainant himself has filled up the said cheque to suit claim and that the ink of the signatures of the accused No.3 and the writing on the cheques are very much different and submits SCCH-20. 16 CC. No.10317/2014 that the said cheques are filled up. It is an admitted fact that the holder of the cheque can fill up the blank. But that should be with respect to the legally recoverable debt. At the first instance the accused has failed to show that the said cheque were issued as security. When compared to the ink, it is seen that the accused No.2 has signed in different ink and the accused No.3 has signed the cheques in different ink. The Ex.P.1 to 5 bears the writing in the same ink as signed by the accused No.2. The accused No.3 is an educated person and she has signed along with the accused No.2 as the partner of the accused No.1 company, which is filled up by the accused No.2. The accused No.3 is not disputing the fact that the accused No.2 was not the partner of the company. She only submits that the cheques were misused by the accused No.2 and therefore she has resigned. But during the said period, the accused No.3 has never lodged any complaint against the accused No.2 for misuse of the said cheques by the accused No.2. Neither she has produced any document to show the exact transaction in between the complainant and the accused during the said SCCH-20. 17 CC. No.10317/2014 course. Therefore this version of the accused No.3 about misuse of the cheques of the accused No.2 or by the complainant has no sanctity.
17. The main point which is to be decided by this court is the liability of the accused No.1 and the Accused No.3. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the accused No.2 and 3 are partners of the accused No.1 company. Therefore the accused No.3 submits that she had resigned the company. But has failed to prove the same. That the transaction of the supply of the materials were done in the name of the complainant company and the accused No.1 company. The accused No.2 and 3 have signed the cheque as partners of Magna Motors in favour of the complainant company. Therefore the entire transaction of the complainant was with that of the accused No.1 company and the cheques are issued by the accused No.1 company signed by its partner and not in individual name. Therefore the accused No.2 and 3 who have signed the cheques as partners of the accused No.1 are vicariously liable to acts of the accused SCCH-20. 18 CC. No.10317/2014 No.1 company. Thus the cheque being issued in the name of accused No.1 company, the juristic legal person, which has been dishonored for funds insufficient, has absolutely committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act The accused No.2 and 3 being partners of accused No.1 company are vicariously liable for the acts of accused No.1 company and thus are liable on behalf of the accused No.1 company to compensate the complainant.
18. As noted above, the accused No.3 has paid Rs.3,00,000/ and got acquitted by the Hon'ble Appellate court in criminal Appeal No.25098/2017. The cheque amount is Rs.5,00,000/ and the accused has committed offence and therefore the accused No.1 ought to had paid double the cheque amount. The transaction was of the year 2013 and nearly 11 years has elapsed, causing harassment to complainant. Therefore the accused No.1 company represented by its partner, the accused No.2 and 3 is absolutely liable to pay the complainant a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/.
SCCH-20. 19 CC. No.10317/2014
19. The accused No.2 has already admitted his guilt and paid Rs.3,00,000/ and got acquitted which needs to be deducted from the above said amount. Therefore the accused No.3 on behalf of Accused No.1 shall be entitled to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ to the complainant.
20. POINT NO.2: Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under powers conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and accused No.3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.7,00,000/. The accused No.3 on behalf of the accused No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ as fine amount.
The accused No.3 shall pay Rs.3,80,000/ (three lakhs and eighty thousand Rupees Only) out of the said fine amount to the complainant SCCH-20. 20 CC. No.10317/2014 on behalf of accused No.1 as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C by deducting any amount paid earlier if any.
The accused No.3 in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
Office is directed to supply copy of judgment to the accused free of cost. [Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of August 2022.] (SHARMILA C.S.) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
PW.1: T.R.Shiva kumar
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT :
Ex.P.15 Cheques 5 in nos
Ex.P.610 Endorsement 5 in nos
SCCH-20. 21 CC. No.10317/2014
Ex.P.11 Legal notice
Ex.P.1216 Receipts 5 in nos
Ex.P.1718 Acknowledgment 2 in nos
Ex.P.19 Notice
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
ACCUSED: NIL
(SHARMILA C.S.)
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
SCCH-20. 22 CC. No.10317/2014
04.08.2022 ( Order pronounced in the open court
vide separate Judgment)
ORDER
Acting under powers conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and accused No.3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.7,00,000/. The accused No.3 on behalf of the accused No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ as fine amount.
The accused No.3 shall pay Rs.3,80,000/(three lakhs and eighty thousand Rupees Only) out of the said fine amount to the complainant on behalf of complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C by deducting any amount paid earlier if any.
The accused in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
Office is directed to supply copy of judgment to the accused free of cost.
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM,
SCCH-20. 23 CC. No.10317/2014
SCCH-20. 24 CC. No.10317/2014
The learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3
vehemently argued that amongst 5 cheques which cheque is pertaining to which of the bill is not explained by complainant. The cheques are issued for security purpose only and Ex.P1 to 5 are tampered to file this complainant. Upon considering aforesaid submission coupled with oral and documentary evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 definitely admitted the issuance of cheques Ex.P1 to 5 be it for security purpose. The accused did not lead probable defence evidence. Even otherwise, the learned counsel, for all Accused submitted no defence evidence. The company has legal entity & it is represented by Accused No.2 & 3. The Accused No.2 and 3 were doing business and both are coobligants. The accused No.2 issued the cheque for purchase of materials to complainant. Therefore, notice is issued by the complainant to responsible persons to the firm i.e., Accused No.2 &3 is valued. The cheques said to be issued in the month of August 2013. The accused No.3 is said to have resigned on 31.03.2013. In this respect, the accused No.3 did not produce an iota of evidence for having discharged herself SCCH-20. 25 CC. No.10317/2014 from responsibilities of the company. Be that as it may, the Accused No.3 did not dispute that she is partner of accused company. Therefore, without cogent evidence, the accused No.3 is estoped from denying now that there was no partner of firm as on the date of issuing the cheque. Therefore, in this case notice is issued by the complainant to the responsible persons to the firm i.e., the accused No.2 and 3 is valid. The legal notice is served on accused No.2 and 3. in the capacity of both managing partners of the business and incharge of daily transaction. The accused no.2 and 3 does not give proper evidence or accounts for repayment of due amount to the complainant. In this circumstances, both the accused No.2 and 3 are responsible persons as the case may be. 2006 (6) KAR.L.J 217 ( Smt.Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath) "It is held Sec.138 and 139 dishonor of cheque -prosecution of drawer for acquittal of accused drawer on ground that cheque was issued as security for repayment of amount that may become due and not in settlement of any preexisting liability, is held, bad in law cheque whether issued as security or in settlement of any debt SCCH-20. 26 CC. No.10317/2014 or liability makes no difference when amount due is not paid, holder of cheque which he had received as security, is entitled to present cheque for encashmentstatutory presumption is that holder of cheque received cheque for discharge of any debt or other liabilitywhere drawer accused has not been able to rebut presumption he is liable to be convicted for offence". 12. The accused No.2 and 3 did not deny the service of notice on them. They could have given evidence of probable defence by examining themselves and produce documentary evidence for retirement of accused No.3 or full repayment. Now the accused No.2 and 3 can not take such defence that cheque was issued blank and amount fill in it is tampered. If at all the accused No.2 and 3 payment is made to the complainant, they would not have kept silent until the complaint was filed. No legal recourse is taken either to honor the contract or legal action initiated to recover the cheques. Under the circumstances, it can be implied that, Accused No.2 signed and both issued cheques in the capacity of partner in the firm. The accused No.2 and 3 are is well aware of their liability towards issuing the cheque in favour SCCH-20. 27 CC. No.10317/2014 of the complainant firm. The Accused does not place probable evidence to believe the payment for goods. It is not established the Ex.P1 to 5 are tampered. The Accused No.2 and 3 failed to raise probable defence. The presumption existing in favour of the complainant Under Section 139 of NI Act could not be rebutted. Even though bills and documents sought by the accused during crossexamination of PW1 is not forthcoming, the cheques are most sufficient to honor claim of complainant. Therefore, Accused No.1 to 3 are held guilty for committing offence punishable Under Section 138 of NI Act. (1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sec. 357(3), 386 second proviso and 29(2) order to pay compensation instead of fine N.I.Act 1881 Sec.138Even the High Court when functioning as a court of appeal held, has to confirm to the second proviso to S.386 and thus can not impose greater punishment or fine than might have been inflicted by the trial court. Howevere, the magistrate or other trial court can award any sum as compensation U/s 357(3) and compensation SCCH-20. 28 CC. No.10317/2014 for the loss to the complainantThus held, in respect of a cheque which covered an amount exceeding Rs.5,000/ such court has the power to award appropriate compensation to the complainant High court in appeal erred in imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/mater remanded to trial court on question of sentenceDebt, financial and monetary laws. N.I.Act 1881 Sec.,138 Award of compensation and imposition of fine by appellate court. The appellate court can not obviate the jurisdiction limit prescribed in Sec.386 of the code. Though the said provision confers power on the court of appeal to reverse an order of acquittal and finds the accused guilty and pass sentence on him according to law, even the high court when it is the court of appeal has to confirm to the second proviso to sec. 386 of the code. The trial in this case was held before a judicial magistrate of the first class who could not have imposed a fine exceeding Rs.5,000/ besides imprisonment. The high court while convicting the accused in the same case could not impose a sentence of fine exceeding the said limit. If a judicial magistrate of the first class were to order compensation to be SCCH-20. 29 CC. No.10317/2014 paid to the complainant from out of the fine realized the complainant will the loser when the cheque amount exceeded the said limit. In such a case a complainant would get only the maximum amount of Rs.5,000/. But the magistrate in such cases can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to sec.357(3) CR.P.C. The supreme court has emphasized the need for making liberal use of that provision. 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. Thus, Even if the trial was before a court of a magistrate of the first class in respect of a cheque which covers on amount exceeding Rs.5,000/ the court has power to award compensation to be paid to the complainant. Therefore, the question of sentence and award of compensation must be considered by the trial court. The magistrate shall hear the prosecution and accused on those accepts. Of course if the complainant and the accused settled their disputes regarding SCCH-20. 30 CC. No.10317/2014 this cheque, In the meanwhile that fact can certainly be taken in to consideration. In determining the extent or quantum of sentence. 14. The cheque being the issued in the year 2013, that the complaint is filed on 22.02.2014, there is lapse of 4 years for prosecution. Hence, complainant firm is entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/. This can be given towards all expenses caused by the dishonor and non payment due under the cheque.