Yahya Ali, J.
1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Puttur, under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. On appeal the Joint Magistrate, Chandragiri, while confirming the conviction converted the sentence of imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 1,000 and further directed that out of the fine, if collected, Rs. 500 should be paid to P.W 1 by way of compensation under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Courts have found that inducement was offered to the wife of P.W. 1 before she was enticed by the petitioner from the house of her husband. It is in evidence that some time prior to the occurrence the petitioner told P.W. 1's wife 'it is not possible to come and go like this, come along. I will take you and keep you as my concubine'. This amounts to saying that he could not continue the liaison in the house of P.W. 1 any longer and that if she wanted to maintain the friendship she should agree to desert her husband's roof and go over to the petitioner and live with him and in that case he undertook to keep her as his mistress. I cannot conceive of a stronger inducement than this to amount to enticement.
2. The next contention raised is that the Joint Magistrate who for the first time levied a fine of Rs. 1,000 was not competent to do so as the appellate Court has no power to impose a punishment higher than what the Court of first instance can do. There is force in third contention and I agree that the Joint Magistrate should not have levied a higher fine than Rs. 200 which is the maximum fine that could have been imposed by the trial Court. But under Sub-section (3) of Section 439, this Court as a Court of revision can inflict the punishment which might have been inflicted by the First Class Magistrate. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 439, I impose a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner for the offence committed by him.
3. Lastly, with regard to the order made under Section 545, it is contended that only the trial Court could make such an order or an appellate Court which dealt with the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court and that an appellate Court which for the first time imposed a sentence of fine could not make such an order. This contention is altogether untenable. It empowers any Criminal Court which imposes a fine or any Criminal Court which confirms in appeal the sentence of fine to make the order contemplated in that section. I do not see any circumstantial explanation of the petitioner's crime. He was holding a responsible position as Village Munsiff and in that capacity played upon the confidence of an unsophisticated person, viz., P.W. 1's wife. It is brought to my notice that on account of the overwhelming sense of humiliation, the husband has since died and the woman has borne an offspring to the petitioner.
4. The petition is dismissed. The conviction, and sentence and the order under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are confirmed.