PRABHUDAS CHHAGANLAL Vs. BABUBHAI VIRABHAI MISERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises a question of general importance as to the powers of the Sessions Judge in the matter of enhancement of sentence in exercise of his powers of revision conferred upon him by the provisions of sec. 397 read with sec. 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereafter referred to as the new Code) The repealed Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 will hereafter be referred to as the old Code. The question has been referred to us by our learned brother A. N. Surti J. observing that it was of some considerable importance.

(2.) The facts leading to the aforesaid question may now be stated. The petitioners before us (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) pleaded guilty to a charge for offences punishable under sec. 332 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad and the learned Magistrate accepting the said plea sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 100.00 only with rigorous imprisonment for 15 days in case of default for the former offence and to a fine of Rs 50/- with rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case of default for the latter. The case was originated upon a complaint filed before police by one Supply Inspector alleging that on April 2 1974 when he had been to the shop of the petitioners for checking and when he demanded the register both the petitioners beat him with sticks. There was a third person also proceeded against in connection with this incident. But with his case we are not concerned in this revisional proceeding because his similar sentence as in the case of the two petitioners on the plea of guilty for the same offences was not enhanced by the learned City Sessions Judge. The Supply Inspector was an informant before police filed Criminal Revision Application No 41 of 1974 before the City Sessions Court Ahmedabad praying for enhancement of sentence; and the learned City Sessions Judge allowed that Revision Application and enhanced the sentence of each of the two petitioners to one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ with further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days in case of default for the offence punishable under sec. 332 of the Indian Penal Code and to 15 days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- with further rigorous imprisonment for seven days in case of default for the offence punishable under sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus having confirmed the order of fine and imprisonment in default for both the aforesaid offences the learned Sessions Judge also imposed substantive sentences of one months rigorous imprisonment and 15 days rigorous imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid two offences. It is against this order in revision that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Two contentions have been raised before us. Firstly that the learned City Sessions Judge had no power to enhance the sentence in revision and secondly that in ally case the said power should not have been exercised in the facts of the present case.