JOHN SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner was the sole accused in C. C. No. 245 of 1980 which was tried and disposed of by the Judicial First Class magistrate, Karunagappally. The petitioner, who was the accused in that case, was charge-sheeted for having committed offences punishable under S. 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a driver in the Kerala State Road transport Corporation and the allegation against him is that on 9-9-1980 at about 6. 10 a. m. he drove K S. R. T. C. bus KLX 1285 in a rash and negligent manner through the National Highway and caused it to hit against one Sivanandan near kaichundipalaka Mukku in Karunagappally causing grievous hurt to him and resulting in his instantaneous death. The First Class Magistrate convicted him under both counts and sentenced him under S. 304-A to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for the day and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to undergo imprisonment for one month. For the offence under S. 279 he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for 7 days. The conviction and sentences were on 21-12-1981.

(2.) AGAINST the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, quilon on 29-1-1982. On 4-2-1982 the sentence of imprisonment alone was suspended and fine was remitted. On 5-2-1982 the Sessions Judge issued notice to the revision petitioner presumably under S. 399 (1) of the Criminal Procedure code in exercise of the suo motu revisional power to show cause why the sentence awarded by the Magistrate for the offences under S. 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code should not be enhanced. The revision petitioner was directed to enter appearance on 17-2-1982. The suo mote revision was numbered,as Crl. R. P. No,11 of 1982. The revision petitioner appeared on 17-2-1982. Thereafter Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 and Criminal R. P. No. 11 of 1982 were posted to 3-3-1982. On that date there was no sitting. From the order sheet it is not seen that the case was adjourned to any other date. But it is seen that on 5-3-1982 the Sessions Judge took up the case, cancelled the bail bonds of the revision petitioner on account of his absence and issued non-bailable warrant and notice to the sureties. It is against this order that the revision petition has been filed. So also the revision petitioner challenges the authority of the Sessions Judge to take suo mote revision in the manner in which he has done.

(3.) THERE is difference between the revisional powers of the High Court under S. 401 (1) and the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge under S. 399 (1), both of which include suo mote revisional powers. It is true that under S. 399 (1) it is provided that the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of S 401. Those are the powers mentioned in S. 401 namely, "exercise of any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by S. 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Sessions by S. 307. " In dealing with the revisional powers of the High Court under S. 401 (1) what is stated is "in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. " "otherwise comes to its knowledge" is absent while describing the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge under s. 399 (1 ). What S. 399 (1) provides is only that the Sessions judge may exercise revisional powers in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself. THEREfore, the Sessions Judge may not be entitled to invoke revisional jurisdiction by "otherwise comes to its knowledge. " the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is limited to any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by himself.