Janani Adyertising Counsel vs Benett Colman and Co. Ltd.

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—The question posed before this Court is this.

Whether the complainant is entitled to file a revision for enhancement of sentence before the Sessions Court, despite the provision u/s 377 Cr. P.C.

giving the State a right of appeal against the inadequate sentence before the High Court ?

The short facts are these : -

(a) Benett Colman & Co. Ltd. filed a private complaint against Janani Advertising Counsel and another for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The trial Court, ultimately, convicted the accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for 3 months.

(b) Feeling aggrieved over the inadequacy of the sentence, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, City Civil Court, Madras praying for enhancement of sentence. Questioning the maintainability of the said revision, the accused filed a

petition in Crl. MP. No. 1544 of 1997 on the ground that the complainant through the State Government has got a remedy to approach the High

Court u/s 377 Cr. P.C. and therefore, when an appeal is provided for, no revision would lie.

(c) The said proposition was refuted by the complainant by filing a counter pointing out the provisions under Sections 377, 386, 397 and 401 Cr.

P.C. thereby contending that revision is maintainable.

(d) The learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition holding that the complainant, being a private party, is entitled to file a revision

for enhancement of sentence. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the accused/petitioners u/s 482 Cr. P. C. questioning the said order

impugned.

Mr. Ashokan, the learned senior counsel, while attacking the impugned order would make the following submissions.

(i) Section 386(c) Cr. P.C. sets out powers to the Appellate Court in an appeal for enhancement of sentence. The said power is derived by an

appeal preferred u/s 386 Cr. P.C. Under the scheme of the Code, an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence can be preferred only the State.

Therefore, the powers conferred on the Appellate Court u/s 386(c) Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised under the revisional jurisdiction.

(ii) u/s 377 Cr. P.C, the High Court alone would be empowered to enhance the sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by the State. Therefore, a

revision by the complainant against the inadequacy of sentence cannot be entertained by the Sessions Court.

The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the proposition of law that no revision by a private party against the inadequacy of sentence

would lie before the Sessions Court has been laid down in In re Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai (1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166) which has been

subsequently approved by the Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V. Krishnamoorthy & Others (1997 1 L.W. (Crl.)

277).

In reply to the above submissions, Mr. S. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent, would emphatically

submit that the law laid down in 1983 L.W. Crl. 166) (supra) has been held to be bad law by the Full Bench of this Court in The Assistant

Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran (1995 1 L.W. (Crl.) 403) and that the conjoint reading of Section 397, 399 and 401 Cr. P.C.

would make it clear that the powers have been conferred on both the Sessions Court and the High Court by way of revisional jurisdiction to go

into the adequacy of the sentence, at the instance of the complainant.

To substantiate the same, he would cite the following authorities.

Prabhudas Chhaganlal and Another Vs. Babubhai Virabhai Miseria and Another, ;

Darshan Lal v. Indira Kumar (1980 All. L.J. 217);

Baldev Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ;

Sahab Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, ;

Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Mohrawati, ;

The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran (1995 1 L.W. (Crl.) 403) ;

Jayarajan v. Muhammed (1999 (2) M.L.J. (Crl.) 499);

Even at the outset, I shall point out that the contention of the learned senior counsel that the finding in Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, In re (1998

L.W. (Crl.) 166) that the Sessions Court or the High Court cannot entertain a revision at the instance of a private party for enhancement of

sentence and that the High Court alone has got the power for enhancement of sentence in the appeal as provided u/s 377 Cr. P.C. and the same

has to be approached by the State in both the cases arising out of the police charge-sheet and the private complaint, which has been affirmed by

the Supreme Court in 1997 1 L.W. (Crl.) 277 (supra), is fatally incorrect, since the issue dealt with in that case by the Apex Court is quite

different.

It is true that on reference by a single Judge of this Court, a Division Bench was constituted to go into the question and after referring to various

relevant Sections of Cr. PC, the Division Bench in Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, In re (1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166) would hold that a revision by a

private party is not maintainable even in the private complaint case, since u/s 377 Cr. P.C., the State Government alone has been conferred light to

approach the High Court by filing an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence in both the cases.

However, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was held to

be not good law by the Full Bench of this Court specially constituted in a decision reported in 1995 1 L.W. (Crl.) 403 (supra) in view of the earlier

decision of the Supreme Court. The relevant observation made by the Full Bench of this Court is as follows -

When a decision of the Division Bench of this Court is contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court, the view of the Division Bench is not good law.

As per Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts including High Courts. In this matter, the

decisions of the Supreme Court are clearly to the effect that a revision petition for enhancement of sentence by a private party is possible, there is

no controversy subsisting and that view has to be followed.

Under those circumstances, it may not be correct for the learned senior counsel to content that the view expressed by this Court in

Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, In re (1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166) was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise,

Madras v. V. Krishnamoorthy & Others (1997 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 277).

On going through the decision in 1997 1 L.W. (Crl.) 277) (supra), it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court in yet another case dismissed

the appeal filled by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise questioning the inadequacy of the sentence holding that u/s 377(2) Cr. P.C., the

appeal could be filed on the direction of the Central Government only in the cases when the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Police

establishment or when the offence has been investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any central law other than

the Criminal Procedure Code and that since the Central Excise officials are not empowered to make investigation under the Customs Act, the said

appeal was not competent. This decision was reported in 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166 (Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, In re).

The said judgment was challenged by the Collector of Central Excise by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court

and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that Section 377(2) Cr. P.C. was not complied with, in view of the fact that the appeal was

not filed on the direction of the Central Government, but the same had been merely filed by the Central Excise Officer being the complainant

through their counsel, who happened to be the Central Government Public Prosecutor.

In the said judgment, the Apex Court did not go into the question whether the Customs Department is an agency empowered to make

investigation within the meaning of Section 377(2) Cr. P.C. Therefore, the decision reported in 1997 L.W. (Crl.) 277 would not be of any use to

the counsel for the petitioners, as it did not deal with the legal question, which was arisen in this case.

To put it differently, the case referred to above would relate to the question as to whether the complainant through the Central Government

Prosecutor without the direction of the Central Government would file an appeal before the High Court u/s 377(2) Cr. P.C. As noted above, we

are not concerned with the said question in this case.

In the present case, the petitioners/accused were convicted on the private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. It is also an admitted

legal position that in view of Section 377 Cr. P.C., an appeal against in adequacy of sentence could be filed only by the State before the High

Court.

In the said situation, the question that would arise is as to whether the complainant, that too, in a private complaint case on being aggrieved

over the inadequacy of sentence could approach the Sessions Court or the High Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction when appeal for

enhancement is provided only to the State and not to the complainant.

To resolve this question, there is some light thrown on in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1995 1 L.W. (Crl.) 403 (supra).

The Full Bench of this Court would refer to two Supreme Court decisions, viz., (1) Pratap v. State of U.P. (1973 S.C.C. (Cri.) 496) and (2)

Bachan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1980 S.C.C. (Cri.) 174).

Let us now go through the relevant observation made by the Apex Court in those decisions.

The observation made in 1973 S.C.C. (Cri.) 496 (supra) is as follows :-

Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has got ample powers to issue notice to show cause why his sentence

should not be enhanced on the basis of a revision petition filed by a private party and the power of the High Court under this Section is one which

the High Court can impost suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under that Section does is to draw the court''s attention to an

illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. The fact that the Government did not do so does not affect the

powers of the High Court under that Section.

The observation made in 1980 S.C.C. (Crl.) 174 (supra) is as follows : -

It has to be appreciated that in respect of the petition which was filed u/s 401 Cr. P.C. for the exercise of the High Court''s powers of revision, it

was permissible for it to exercise the power of a Court of Appeal u/s 386 for enhancement of the sentence, and if that had been done, there is no

justification for the argument that the enhancement was illegal.

The above observation would make it clear that Supreme Court has given a clear-cut opinion that the private party can file a revision before

the High Court in order to draw the Court''s attention to an illegal, improper and incorrect sentence, even though the State has not filed an appeal.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, though initially would raise a specific plea that both the High Court and the Sessions

Court will have no revisional jurisdiction to go into the inadequacy of sentence at the instance of the private party, would now contend that the said

power can be invoked through revisional jurisdiction only by the High Court and not by the Sessions Court, as such power has not been conferred

to the Sessions Court.

In the light of the said submission, let us now go into the relevant provisions in order to understand the basic principles so that it may further

help to have a clear view about the legal position.

Under the Old Criminal Procedure Code, there was not provision either for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal for enhancement of

sentence. However, the High Court, while exercising its revisional power u/s 439 (old Code), was vested with discretion to enhance the sentences

passed by the subordinate Courts, after affording, to the accused, an opportunity of being heard.

The Law Commission was of the view that the Government should have a right of appeal whenever it considered that an accused person had

been let off with too light or inadequate sentence as would affect public interest. Hence, Section 377 Cr. P.C. was newly introduced in the new

Code, giving to the State Government a right of appeal against inadequate sentence in appropriate cases. Let us now quote Section 377 Cr. P.C.

Section 377 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:-"" Appeal by the State Government against sentence.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a

High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy.

(2)......

(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after

giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for

his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.

The reading of the above Section would reflect two significant features.

(1) The first is that the power to entertain an appeal over the inadequacy of sentence u/s 377 has been conferred only on the High Court.

(2) The second is that the Government alone is empowered to seek for enhancement of sentence in an appeal ""in any case of conviction on a trial

held by any Court other than the High Court"".

It is thus clear that even against the sentence awarded in a case of private complaint, the State can direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal

for enhancement of sentence.

In view of the introduction of Section 377 Cr. P.C. giving right only to the State to seek for enhancement of sentence in both categories of

cases before the High Court, it is contended that the right given to a private party seeking for enhancement of sentence in both police and private

cases u/s 439 Cr. P.C. (Old Code) had been taken away. But, this contention, in my opinion, may not hold good, in view of the introduction of

Sections 399 and 401 Cr.P.C.

When the Code was amended, the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge were increased with a view to relieve some of the congestion of

work in the High Courts. In the light of the said reason, Section 399 Cr. P.C. was provided to enable the Sessions Court to ""exercise all or any of

the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) to Section 401 Cr.P.C.

Sub-section (1) of Section 401 Cr. P.C. reads as follows : -

High Court''s powers of revision: - (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to

its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections, 386, 389, 390 and

391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall

be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392.

As per this sub-section, the High Court may, in its discretion exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by Section 386 and

other Sections of the Cr. P.C. Section 386 Cr. P.C. deals with the powers of the appellate Court. It makes reference to appeals against

convictions as well as to appeals under Sections 377 and 378 Cr. P.C.

Sections 386 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:-

Powers of the Appellate Court.? After perusing such record and hearing the appellate or his pleader, if he appears, and in case of an appeal u/s

377 or Section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the

appeal, or may -

(a)......

(b)......

(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence -

(i) ......

(ii)......

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same ;

(d)......

(e)......

Provided that the sentence shall not to be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement.

Let us now see Section 399 Cr. PC. Section 399 Cr. P.C. reads as follows: -""Sessions Judge''s powers of revision.?

(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers

which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401.

(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2),

(3), (4) and (5) of Section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said subsections to the High Court shall be

construed as references to the Sessions Judge.

(3) Where by application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereof

in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High

Court or any other Court.

The reading of these Sections would reveal that the Sessions Court u/s 399(2) Cr. P.C. could invoke the power of the High Court under sub-

section (1) of Section 401 Cr. P.C.

It is true that the word ""Sessions Court"" is not included in Section 377 Cr. P.C. But, Section 401 Cr. P.C. would refer to the powers of the

Court of Appeal u/s 386 Cr. P.C. in which the reference about Section 377 Cr. P.C. is made. The only difference between the powers of revision

before the Sessions Court and the High Court, as could be seen from Sections 399 and 401 Cr. P.C. is this.

Section 399 Cr. P.C. would provide ""in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by himself the Sessions Judge may

exercise......"" In Section 401 Cr. P.C, the Section begins with the words ""in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by

itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may exercise......"". Thus, it is clear that the word ""otherwise comes to its

knowledge"" is absent in Section 399 Cr. P.C.

But, the Sessions Court, when it calls for record by invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 399 Cr. P.C., would certainly invoke powers u/s

401(1) Cr. P.C. for exercise of any of its powers on a Court of appeal by Section 386 Cr. P.C., etc., subject to the restriction contained therein.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 397 Cr. P.C. Section 397(1) Cr. P.C. runs as under : -

Calling for records to exercise powers of revision?(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any

proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its and his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior

Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement,

that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

The reading of this Section would show that the High Court as well as the Sessions Court may call for record of any proceeding of any inferior

criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence, etc.

Thus, the Sessions Judge could examine the question in relation to the inadequacy of sentence in view of the powers conferred on him by

Subsection (1) of Section 397 Cr. PC.

As noted above, under sub-Section (1) of Section 399 Cr. P.C., the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which m ay be

exercised by the High Court under subsection (1) of Section 401 Cr. PC.

From this, it will follow that if the High Court could enhance the sentence, the Sessions Judge can also do it, as contemplated u/s 401(1) Cr.

P.C. According to Clause (c) of Section 386 of the Code, the Appellate Court can, in an appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or

the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same.

It is true that the right of appeal has been conferred on the State to approach the Court u/s 377 Cr. P.C. It is also true that u/s 401(4) Cr. P.C.

where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision can be entertained. But, this would apply to the person who is

competent to file an appeal and this would not preclude the right of the complainant to seek for revision questioning the inadequacy of sentence,

since Section 401(4) provides no proceeding by way of revision can be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

The State has got a right to file an appeal u/s 377 Cr. P.C., and so, the State cannot be allowed to file a revision. In other words, in the light of

the right conferred, the Government alone could file an appeal for enhancement of sentence and the private party would not be allowed to file an

appeal u/s 377 Cr. P.C. To put it differently, the State could file appeal alone and not revision.

Thus, the right of the State to approach the High Court seeking for enhancement of the sentence would not preclude the complainant, who is

the real aggrieved party to seek for the enhancement of sentence, from filing a revision either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court.

To put it in a nutshell, though there is no right given to the complainant to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence, he is well within his right

to file revision before the Sessions Court u/s 397 Cr. P.C. or the High Court u/s 401 Cr. P.C.

In this context it should be taken note of Section 417 Cr. P.C, as it stood before its amendment by 1956 Act by which the State alone could

file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed in any case. In other words, an appeal could be filed by the State in a case based on police

charge sheet as well as in a case arising out of a private complaint. At that time, the complainant, did not have the right of appeal. So to say that the

complainant could only move the State to file an appeal.

But, it was, however, held by the Apex Court in 1958 M.L.J. (Crl) 217 at page 223, in the light of Section 417 Cr. P.C. that a complainant

could file a revision. After the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1956, the right of appeal has been conferred only on the

complainant in a case started on a private complaint.

Similar position may life at the present situation also, in view of the fact that the private party could invoke Section 377 Cr. P.C. to file an

appeal only through the State.

In a case arising out a police charge sheet, which ended in acquittal, the State alone would file an appeal. In this context, it is further held by the

Apex Court that the first informant could file a revision against the order of acquittal in a case arising out of police charge sheet.

Section 439 (5) Cr. P.C. (Old), which is analogous to sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the present Code, barred a revision at the instance of

a party who has a right of appeal. However, it was held that since an informant did not possess a right of appeal in a case arising out of police

charge-sheet, a revision filed by him against an order of acquittal was not barred by Section 439(5) of the Code.

Similar position would lie in this case as well. u/s 377 Cr. P.C., the complainant could only move the Government to file an appeal. The direct

appeal by the complainant is not maintainable. But, it does not mean that the complainant would not be competent to file a revision.

Similarly, although Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. would be a bar for revision by a party who has got a right of appeal, since the complain; it has no

right of appeal, he could very well maintain a revision either u/s 397 or u/s 401 Cr. P.C.

Thus, in view of interpretation of the Apex Court on the analogy of Sections 417 and 439 of the old Code, it is obvious that the complainant

can file a revision against inadequate sentence, despite the provision contained in Sections 377(1) and 401(4) of the present Code.

Further, it is permissible for the Sessions Court u/s 397 Cr. P.C. to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before the trial Court for

the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by that inferior Court.

It is also clear from Section 399 Cr. P.C. that the Sessions Judge can exercise all or any of the powers which can be exercised by the High

Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401 Cr. P.C. Under sub-section (1) of Section 401 Cr. P.C., the High Court can exercise any of the

powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Sessions by Section 307.

Section 399 (1) Cr. P.C. provides re-visional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. But, the phrase ""otherwise comes to its knowledge"" found in

Section 401(1) Cr. P.C. is absent in Section 399 (1) Cr. P.C. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that the Sessions Judge is not entitled to

invoke the jurisdiction which otherwise comes to his knowledge and as such, the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is limited in the case

of any proceedings the record of which has been called for by himself Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Sessions Judge has the powers

to enhance the sentence in revision, subject to the limitation set forth in sub-section (4)of Section 401 Cr. P.C.

The bar u/s 401(4) Cr. P.C. would not apply to the complainant, since he is not competent to file an appeal as provided u/s 377 Cr. P.C.

Thus, it is clear that the legislature did not exclude exercise of the powers of revision totally where an appeal lies. Instead, there is a partial

exclusion of the revision proceeding at the instance of the party, who could have appealed.

When the concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred on both the High Court and the ""Sessions Court u/s 396 (1) Cr. P.C. and more

particularly when Section 399 (1) Cr. P.C. would provide the Sessions Judge while dealing with the revision can exercise all or any of the powers

which may be exercised under sub-Section (1) of Section 401 Cr. P.C., it would follow that if the High Court, while dealing with the revision can

enhance the sentence, the Sessions Judge also can to it.

Thus, it is evident that the failure of the State to prefer an appeal before the High Court challenging the inadequacy of the sentence u/s 377 Cr.

P.C. will not preclude the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court to consider the inadequacy of the sentence on the basis

of the revision filed by the complainant or the private party challenging the inadequacy of the sentence, except in such a case where revision is

barred u/s 401 (4) Cr. P.C.

It is also admitted that in the this case the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Sessions Court against the conviction and sentence

imposed upon him by the trial Court. Therefore, the Sessions Court will have an opportunity to consider both these aspects namely, the propriety

of the finding on conviction and the legality of the sentence in both the appeal filed by petitioner/accused and the revision filed by the

respondent/complainant.

In view of the facts stated above, it can be safely held mat the Sessions Court has got ample power as the revisional Court to enhance the

sentence in a revision preferred by the complainant or the interested party, even though the State, who is the competent party has not filed an

appeal before the High Court and as such, the order of the Sessions Court is perfectly valid in law.

There is yet another feature which involves necessary sequel to the new scheme of conferring wide powers on the Sessions Judge authorising

him to dispose of the revision finally. Section 438 of the old Code which required the Sessions Judge to report to the High Court the result of

examination of proceedings records of which were called for by him, is wholly omitted.

This new scheme also omits the provision for exercise of powers by the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered by the

State Government contained in Section 435 of the Old Code and makes all the Executive Magistrate whether exercising original or appellate

Jurisdiction inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of powers of revision of the Sessions Judge u/s 397 and 398 of the New Code.

In mis context, it is worthwhile to refer to the fact that notwithstanding of the fact that there was the recommendation of the Law Commission in

its 14th Report to exclude ""petitions against order of acquittal and for enhancement of sentence"" from the powers of the Sessions Judge to pass

final orders in revision, the Legislature did not make any such exclusion while conferring powers on the Sessions Judge by Section 399 (1) Cr.

P.C.

The Law Commission in its 14th Report had observed as under : -

We are, therefore, of the view that Sessions Judges may well be invested with powers to pass final orders in revision in all matters other than

petitions against orders of acquittal and for enhancement of sentence.

Despite the said recommendation, the legislature conferred powers of revision to the Sessions Court not only u/s 397 Cr. P.C. to call for the

records to examine the correctness of sentence, but also would confer powers vested with the High Court u/s 401(1) Cr. P.C. to the Sessions

Court by virtue of Section 399 Cr. P.C.

These things would make it clear that the cases for enhancement of sentence at the instance of the private party which would have normally

gone to the High Court in respect of sentences passed by the Courts subordinate to the Sessions Judge, would now go to the Sessions Court and

thereby the object of relieving the congestion of work in High Courts in part will be achieved to some extent.

According to clause (c) of Section 386 Cr. P.C., the Appellate Court can in the appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or the

extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. In view of this provision contained in Section 386 Cr. PC, it should be held that the

High Court while dealing with a revision, can enhance the sentence.

As stated earlier, the powers of a Sessions Judge while dealing with a revision are the same as that of the High Court. When the High Court

can enhance the sentence while dealing with the revision, the Sessions Judge can also do so.

In view of the above discussion, my conclusion is as follows : -

The complainant/first informant is entitled to file a revision for enhancement for sentence either before the Sessions Court u/s 397 and 399 Cr. P.C.

or before the High Court u/s 401 Cr. P.C. both in private complaint cases and police charge-sheeted cases, since the Sessions Judge has got

power to enhance the sentence in revision, even though the State, who has been conferred with the power of filing an appeal before the High Court

for enhancement of sentence, has not filed the same.

In view of the above conclusion, this petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Sessions

Court is directed to take up the revision for enhancement of sentence filed by the respondent/complainant and the appeal against the conviction

filed by the petitioners/accused and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Crl. MP. No. 2532 of 1997 is closed.