EMPEROR Vs. KAMAL DATTATRAYA SOHONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum of a revision application preferred before him by the father of a girl, who was accused No. 2, in an offence charged under the Defence of India Rules.

(2.) In the case in question three girls and five boys were charged under Rule 56(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, with taking out a procession without the permission of the District Magistrate. Two of the girls and one of the boys apologised, and they were dealt with under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Four of the boys, who were accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, were convicted and sentenced to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. The other girl, accused No. 2, to whom this reference relates, was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. One of the boys, accused No. 8, appealed to the Sessions Court of Belgaum, and the learned Sessions Judge reduced his sentence to two months rigorous imprisonment, and set aside the fine. Then the father of accused No. 2 made an application in revision. There are a good many instances in which applications in revision, made on behalf of a party who has not appealed, have been entertained, and we are prepared to entertain the application, although accused No. 2 has not appealed.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge in dealing with the appeal of accused No. 8 discussed at considerable length the principles on which trial Courts should act in imposing sentences, and on which Appeal Courts should act in modifying those sentences, and, in the result, as I have mentioned, he very drastically reduced the sentence on the appellant before him. We sent for his judgment, and I am not in agreement by any means with all the views of the learned Sessions Judge expressed in that judgment, nor do I agree with the action which he took.