LAWS(P&H)-1979-5-25

JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

Decided On May 15, 1979
JOGINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of Punjab Etc. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN case F.I.R. No. 316 of 1975, Police Station Longowal, registered under section 420, 457, 419 and 182, Indian Penal Code, Joginder Singh, Tek Singh, Baldev Singh and Mst. Tejinder Kar were convicted under section 419 read with sections 114 and 465 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, as they had pleaded guilty to the charges. Joginder Singh, Baldev Singh and Tejinder Kaur were sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay a fine Rs. 200/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under section 419 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to fine of Rs. 300/ - and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Under section 465 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code Tek Singh was let off on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) OUT of the persons convicted, Joginder Singh filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Magistrate in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The learned Sessions Judge, while hearing the appeal vide order dated 23rd February, 1978 observed that the offence was of a serious nature and that the trial Magistrate had taken a lenient view in the matter. He, therefore, issued notices to Joginder Singh, Baldev Singh and Tejinder Kaur to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced. Notice was also issued to Tek Singh, Lambardar to show cause as to why the order of probation be not set aside and why he be not awarded appropriate sentence. It is against this order that Tek Singh Lambardar has filed Criminal Misc. No. 2038 M of 1978 and Joginder Singh has filed Cri. Misc No. 1984 M. of 1978. Since both these criminal miscellaneous applications arise out of one and the same order, the same will be disposed of by this single order.

(3.) IT appears that the Sessions Judge thought that he had power to issue notice for enhancement under Section 399, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 399, Criminal Procedure Code deals with the case pending in the courts below and not with a case which has been decided. Moreover, the Sessions Judge was not dealing the case in revision and as such section 399, Criminal Procedure Code, is not applicable in this case. The result is that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge issuing notices to the accused for enhancement of sentence is not legally correct and the same is hereby quashed. The appeal filed by Joginder Singh shall be decided on merits.