STATE Vs. MD SAMSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Puri, recommending enhancement of the sentence passed on the opposite party for his conviction under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

(2.) ON 18.4.1964, the officer -in -charge of the town Police Station, Puri, drew up an F.I.R. against the opposite party, Md. Samsur, alleging that the accused by means of a loud -speaker was shouting slogans advocating for observance of Hartal in the town of Puri. According to the S. I., the accused incited the people assembled near the Government General Hospital Puri, to observe Hartal and was responsible for causing obstruction to some of the rickshaw pullers moving in the street. The accused was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Court. The Court took cognisance of an offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 341, Penal Code and Rule 41 of the Defence of India Rules.

(3.) THE main question for consideration is whether it is a fit case where the sentence passed upon the accused can be enhanced. It is well settled that the question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the trial Court, though undoubtedly the High Court, in appropriate cases where the sentence passed is unusually lenient, may enhance the sentence. Though no limitation has been placed on the powers of the High Court to enhance a sentence, nevertheless it is a judicial act and like all judicial acts involves an exercise of discretion and such discretion must be exercised on the basis of some well -known judicial principles. The Supreme Court in a case reported in Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 778 held that in a matter of enhancement there should not be any interference unless the sentence passed is manifestly inadequate. The same view was also reiterated in a later decision of the Supreme Court reported in Alamgir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 436, where their Lordships observed that the question of sentence is normally a matter left to the discretion of the trial Judge. It is for him to take into account all the circumstances and decide what sentence would meet the ends of justice in a particular case. Though the High Court has jurisdiction to enhance the sentence that jurisdiction can be properly exercised only if the High Court is satisfied that the sentence passed by the trial Judge is unduly lenient or in passing the order of sentence the trial Judge has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts.