STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANOHAR GOVING RANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Reference No. 2/1981 and 3/1981 even though arising out of two different prosecutions and two different references made by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, since the question sent for reference is identical, both the said references can be answered by this common order. Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1 81 is also in respect of the same prosecution in which the applicant Manohar was convicted and for which reference has been made vide Criminal Reference No. 2/1981. Hence the said revision also can be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Shri G. A. Paunikar, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor for the State appeared in all the three matters on behalf of the State, while Kumari N. R. Sarin, Advocate (appointed) for applicant Manohar, who is respondent in Criminal Reference No. 2/1981 and applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981. Shri P. Y. Deshpande, Advocate, appeared for respondent No. 1 Kishorilal in Criminal Reference No. 3/1981, while Shri Shirpurkar and Shapurji, Advocates, appeared for respondents 2 and 3 in the said reference. All the aroresaid counsel of the parties were heard.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, vide his references registered as 2/1981 and 3/1981 respectively has forwarded the papers on the following questions of law : (1) Whether the Court of Sessions suo motu can enhance the sentence of an accused in fit cases ? (2) Whether Court of Sessions is empowered to entertain a revision application and enhance the sentence of an accused convicted in a private complaint case or in police cases at the instance of parties other than State ?