STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHIPATI KRISHNA INGAVALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra under section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Malkapur, District Kolhapur, dated 25th January, 1974 convicting the accused under section 33(1)(c)(f) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 3/- in default to suffer r.i. for 3 days under section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for enhancing the sentence on the ground that the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was too inadequate.

(2.) As the conviction is based on the plea of guilty by accused, it is not material for this judgment to refer to the facts of the case. The important question raised by Mr. Pinge for the accused, as this was an appeal for enhancement of sentence is that under section 377(1) read with section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not competent for the State of Maharashtra to direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence on finding the sentence to be inadequate. In order to appreciate the law point raised by Mr. Pinge, it is necessary to go into a little details about the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and 1973. The relevant sections for my consideration are, section 471(1), section 436 read with section 439(1) of the old Code, and section 377(1) read with section 377(2) and section 378(1) read with section 378(2) of 1973 Code, which are in the following terms :---

(3.) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may direct Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.