SAT NARAIN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision by Mr. B.B. Chandra on account of an accused person Satnarain Lal who has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C., and sentenced by a Magistrate to four months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine or in default two months further rigorous imprisonment and that sentence has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. When the revision was filed in this Court a learned single Judge of this Court passed the order: Admit only on the question of sentence. Record need not be sent for. Bail refused. Realization of fine will not be stayed.

(2.) When the revision began before me today learned Counsel claimed that he had a right to address me not only on the sentence but also on the merits of the finding and his argument was that the order of the learned Single Judge meant an admission of the revision and therefore it was open to him to argue the revision on all points. Now Section 440, Criminal P.C., provides: No party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court when exercising its powers of revision; provided that the Court may if it thinks fit when exercising such powers hear any party either personally or by pleader.

(3.) This Section shows therefore that counsel has not got any general right of being heard at all in this revision. Presumably, when the revision came before the learned Single Judge he heard counsel on the revision generally by granting a hearing under the proviso of Section 440. The learned single Judge then considered that counsel should not be heard further on the question of the finding but that there should be a further hearing on the question of sentence and for that reason the order was passed. It appears to me that the order which was passed by the learned single Judge was an order which was perfectly legal and which he had full jurisdiction to pass. I consider that counsel is not entitled to treat that order as a nullity and no authority for this proposition was shown to me. No doubt any Judge of this Court before whom a revision comes has powers to send for the record as is provided under Section 439(1) in the words "or which otherwise comes to its knowledge." But that matter is quite different from the right of counsel to be heard and an order has been passed under Section 440 limiting that right in the present case to the question of sentence. Some argument was made that the record was necessary for orders in revision. Under Section 435(1), Criminal P.C., it is provided: The High Court...may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court...for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed.