S BALASUBRAMANINAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Original Petition No.8025 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.Nos.8 and 9 of 2009 came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Criminal Revisions were filed at the instance of the accused in CC No.10403 of 1995 and Crl.O.P. was filed at the instance of the private parties.

(2.) During the course of hearing, a question arose before the learned Single Judge as to whether the Court of Sessions has got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence. On behalf of the revision petitioners/accused, it was argued that a revision before the Court of Sessions for enhancement of sentence at the instance of a third party was not maintainable. However, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8025 of 2008, who were the witnesses/third parties in the criminal case, had submitted that such revision for enhancement before the Court of Sessions was maintainable and relied on a decision (Janani Advertising Counsel rep by its Proprietor R. Ramanukam vs Benet Colmman and Co Ltd rep by its Assistant Manager C.P.Raghavan, 2002 2 LW(Cri) 549 (hereinafter referred to as Janani Advertising Case).

(3.) After elaborate consideration, the learned Single Judge respectfully differed with the view taken in the Janani Advertising case, which is followed in the case of R.S. Shankar vs B. Kala,2010 1 MWN(Cri)DCC 11 and directed the Registry to refer the following question before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for consideration in order to refer the same to a Division Bench to answer. The question to be answered is as follows: