SANJAY NAGAYACH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has filed revision against judgment dtd. 6/2/2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Pawai District Panna in Criminal Appeal No.09/2018 by which sentence of applicant has been enhanced.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that notice is required to the applicant before enhancing the sentence. Notice of appeal and notice of enhancement of sentence cannot be said to be same thing. In this case, no notice has been issued. Substantial question of law has been raised by the applicant in this revision for consideration. It is also argued on behalf of applicant that surrendering of applicant is not necessary while preferring criminal revision before this Court. Relying on Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Senior Advocate submitted that if Court is satisfied regarding impropriety or illegality in the proceedings and call for the records for examination then Court may direct execution of sentence or order be suspended, and if applicant is in confinement, he may be released on bail. There is no bar under Sec. 397 for not entertaining the application until accused is in confinement. Reliance is placed on the order passed by Madras High Court in case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy reported in 2006 SCC Online Mad 1231. Relevant paragraphs is quoted as under:-

(3.) Further reliance is placed on the order passed by Kerala High Court in case of Ibrahim Vs. State of Kerla reported in 1979 SCC Online Ker 140. Relevant paragraphs is quoted as under:-