NATARAJA THEVAR Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has preferred this revision for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent by the learned Sessions judge, Pudukottai.

(2.) THE petitioner herein had preferred a complaint for defamation under Section 500, I. P. C. , against the respondent in C. C. No. 671 of 1979 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, alleging that the respondent, who was prosecuted in C. C. No. 180 of 1979 for the offence committed under Section 290, I. P. C. , in which the petitioner was examined as a witness, has stated in her Section 313, Cr. P. C. , statement that the petitioner invited her to have illicit intimacy with him and since she refused, he has preferred a false complaint against her, that such a statement was recklossly made and it was highly defamatory, that the complainant, who was aged about 65 years, and who was a freedom fighter, was getting pension from the Government and that on account of the defamatory statement made by the respondent, he suffered mental agony. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted the respondent and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R. I. , for three months and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 250/-to the petitioner, out of the fine amount collected. THE learned Sessions Judge, on appeal, confirmed the conviction, but released the respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of offenders Act on her executing a bond for Rs. 1 ,00 0 /-with two sureties for the like sum for her good behaviour for a period of one year and directed her to pay the said compensation of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the modification of the sentence, this revision was filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent.

(3.) AS regards the maintainability of the revision by the private complainant for enhancement of the sentence, a Division Bench of this court in Krishnamurthy and Elumalai, In re. , (1983) L. W. (Crl.) 166: (1984)Crl. L. J. 243, held as follows; ". . . . In the matter of enhancement of sentence, the high Court's powers of revision are circumscribed by the terms of S. 377, itself. AS per that Section, it is only the State Government under sub-S. (1) or in appropriate cases the Central Government under sub-S. (2) that can file an appeal for enhancement of sentence. Such being the case, it can never be said that the High Court can entertain a revision at the instance of a private party for enhancement. To hold otherwise would result in transgrassing the parameters of S. 377, Cr. P. C. , set out by Parliament. &quot ; In the light of the above decision and as the sentence is entirely in the discretion of the Court, I hold that this revision for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable.