LASKHMANA PRABHU Vs. VIDYASAGARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the complainant in C. C. 288 of 1967 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Crangaanora. The only question arising in this revision is whether the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate is adequate in the circumstances of the case. The complaint was under S.143, 342 and 506 IPC. The allegation was that the accused five in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly along with certain others with the common object of wrongfully confining the complainant and intimidating him so that he might be forced to pay Rs. 5/- to each of the accused who had assembled in front of his factory (The Hindustan Umbrella Factory, Cranganore). In furtherance of the common object the accused on 22-4- 1967 wrongfully confined the complainant in his office room in the factory between 5.30 and 10.15 PM. He was then threatened with death in case he did not comply with their demand. He was released from his confinement at 10.15 PM. pursuant to an order of protection issued from this court on C. M. P. 3685 of 1967 presented in O. P. 1185 of 1967 on 22-4-1967. When the petitioner was under wrongful confinement the allegation is that he was not even allowed to take a cup of coffee which was brought for him. He was also prevented from using his telephone to contact the police. But somehow, a message was conveyed to the Sub Inspector of Police by the complainant's brother and the S I. came, But he had no sufficient number of constables with him. So, he contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Circle Inspector, for reinforcement. They accordingly came and released him. Crime No. 81 of 1967 was taken by the police against the accused for the above said atrocities committed by them, but later that was referred. Thereupon the petitioner filed the present complaint and it was registered as C. C. No. 228 of 1967. The learned Magistrate at the conclusion of the trial found that the offences charged against were in fact, committed by the accused and accordingly they have been convicted and sentenced to fine. The first accused has been sentenced under S.143 IPC. to a fine of Rs. 20/-, under S.342 to a fine of Rs. 30 and under S.506(ii) to a fine of Rs. 50/-. The 2nd accused has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/- under S.143, a fine of Rs. 30 under S.342 and a fine of Rs. 50/- under S.506. Accused 3 to 5 also have similarly been sentenced to Rs. 20, 30 and 50 on each count. There is no direction in the judgment that the sentences shall run concurrently. It must therefore, be taken that the sentences on the various counts are to run consecutively. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Trichur. The complainant's grievance is that the sentence awarded is unduly lenient and bears no proportion whatever to the magnitude of the offence proved against them.

(2.) Before going into the question as to the advisability or otherwise of enhancing the sentence in the present case, the preliminary objection taken by the respondents against the maintainability of the petition has to be considered. The learned counsel would point out that a petition of this nature preferred by a private party cannot be entertained since the question is one with which the Crown alone is concerned. Of course, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can tackle the question and pass appropriate orders. But according to the learned counsel, a petition by a private party for enhancement of the sentence would smack of retribution which is out of tune with modern trends in the realm of penology. It is no doubt the responsibility of the Crown and not of the individual to ask the court for enhancement of the sentence. But the right of individual to apprise the High Court of a particular position calling for the High Court's interference is always there and cannot be stifled. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bisheshar v. Rex (AIR 1949 Allahabad 213) has observed:

(3.) The position is however, well settled that the question of sentence is clearly in the discretion of the trial Judge. In Alamgir and another v. State of Bihar ( 1959 Supp (1) SCR 464 ) the Supreme Court laid down the law on this subject in the following words: