R.S. Shankar vs V. Kala

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 357 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1,

Pondicherry. The respondent herein is the accused in the said case. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, had convicted the

respondent/accused herein for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and without awarding substantive sentence of

imprisonment since the accused being a lady, had directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh Only) alone

and in default of payment of compensation, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As no sentence of imprisonment

was imposed on the accused, the complainant has preferred this revision for enhancement of sentence.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, against the conviction , the accused has preferred an appeal and

the same is pending before the Learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in CRL Appeal No. 4 of 2004.

Now, this revision is connected with the appeal pending before the II Additional Sessions Court, Pondicherry. Therefore, the appeal preferred

by the accused and the revision preferred by the complainant should be heard together and disposed of.

u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge has got ample powers to consider the grievance of the party and the correctness, legality or

propriety of the sentence can be considered by the Learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the question of inadequacy of the sentence could

certainly be adjudicated by the Sessions Court in the revision application.

This Honourable High Court also has held in Janani Advertising Counsel etc., v. Benett Colman & Co. Ltd., etc. reported in 2002 (2) LW

(Crl.) 549 as follows:

Para 60.

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 do it.

Accordingly, this revision case is now sent before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry for disposal according to law. The II Additional

Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of revision preferred by the complainant, as well as the appeal preferred by the accused, after hearing them

together and pass orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.