PRAMATHA NATH BASU Vs. GANGA CHARAN CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have examined the record in this case and have perused with attention the opinions of the differing Judges. As far as I know, the practice of this Court has been not to interfere on petitions of private complainants praying for enhancement of the sentence passed on the accused. It will not be understood from what I have just said that the High Court has not the power to interfere on the application of a private complainant The powers of the High Court are extremely wide. But it is an elementary proposition that wider the power, the more cautious must be the exercise of that power and, in the cautious exercise of that power, it has been laid down by eminent Judges from time to time that it is a safe working rule not to interfere on petitions for enhancement of sentences passed on accused persons made on behalf of private complainants. Bat the position in this case is this : the present application is not for the issue of a Rule calling upon the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. A Rule has been issued by the High Court. It is not for me to say whether the Rule should have been issued or not. It is sufficient for me to take note of the fact that a Rule has been issued and it is, therefore, my obvious duty to go into the if acts and ascertain for myself whether, in the circumstances of this case, the sentence should be enhanced. That is the sole duty which is before me at the present moment. Now, on that point, I cannot help saying that, in the circumstances of this particular case, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court should not have been reduced by the Sessions Judge. Mr. Das Gupta who appears on behalf of the accused States that, inasmuch as the High Court does not ordinarily interfere on the application of a private complainant, I should not interfere on this occasion with the order passed by the Sessions Judge. As indicated above, much of the importance which would otherwise have attached to Mr. Das Gupta's contention has been lessened by reason of the issue of the Rule by my learned brothers Costello and Lort-Williams, JJ.

(2.) AS I said a few moments ago, the High Court can interfere on the application of a private complainant but it does not ordinarily so interfere. The High Court for the matter of that can interfere of its own motion. Bat having regard to the fact that the Rule was issued by the High Court, while I am not unmindful of what has been contended before me, it is my obvious duty to look into the record for myself and come to the conclusion as to whether or not the sentence should be enhanced. I am of opinion that the sentence imposed by the trial Court should not have been reduced and, in that view of the matter, I enhance the sentence of fine passed on the accused from Rs. 200 to 500 and, in default of payment, direct the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.