JUDGMENT Crl.R.C. No. 684 of 1977 is against the order of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in an unnumbered Criminal Revision Petition, dated 28th July, 1977. Criminal R.C. No.685 of 1977 is against the order in an unnumbered Criminal Revision Petition dated 12th July, 1977, passed by the Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. There criminal revision petitions had been filed by the Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited, against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rama-nathapuram in C.C.No. 4 of 1977 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C.No. 57 of 1977. 3. Criminal Revision Case No. 685 of 1977.-It appears from the facts of the case that the respondents misappropriated and committed criminal breach of trust of the funds belonging to the said society to the tune of Rs.27,966.06. Evidence was let in and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, on going through the entire evidence, convicted the respondents under section 408, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them. As far as the first respondent (M.K. Sikkander) was concerned, he was convicted and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. As far as the second respondent (M.Balasaraswathi) who is not a party before me, was concerned, she was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Society who was the complainant in both the cases found that the punishment imposed on the respondents was not in accordance with the tenor cf section 408, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, preferred a criminal revision petition before the District Court for enhancement of sentence. 4. In the grounds of revision filed before the District Court, Madurai, it was contended that no reasoning was given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in his Judgment for the award of a lessser sentence and that the ends, of justice require that the sentence should be enhanced when there is no extenuating factor like payment of embezzled money. In short, in the grounds of revision before the Sessions Court, Madurai, it was inter alia contend-ed by the Society that the sentence imposed on the respondents herein has to be enhanced. 5. In short, in the grounds of revision before the Sessions Court, Madurai, it was inter alia contend-ed by the Society that the sentence imposed on the respondents herein has to be enhanced. 5. The office of the District Court, Madu-rai, has objected to number the criminal revision petition and the petition was posted before the District Judge for orders. The learned Sessions Judge, in the unnumbered criminal revision petition, has passed acurious order which has to be prima facie set aside. The learned Sessions Judge observed as follows: “The filing of this revision petition was objected to, as this Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code, contained that only the High Court has got revisional jurisdiction to en-hance the sentence and not the Sessions Court. I have perused the sections and come to the conclusion that only the High Court has got jurisdiction to enhance the sentence. Hence, this petition is rejected.” This order of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, suffers from irregularity and is perverse and contrary to law. 6. It should be seen that the Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Mar. keting Society has filed a private complaint against the respondents under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, for misappropriating the funds of the Society. It was, in fact, found by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in his judgment, dated 7th May, 1977 in C.C. No. 57 of 1979, that a sum of Rs.27,966.06 was misappropriated by the respondents. Since the sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magis-trate was inadequate and not in consonance with the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code, a revision was pre-ferred by the Society before the Sessions Judge, Madurai. Section 399 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, empowers the Sessions Court to exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub- section (1) of section 401. Under section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court in the case of any proceedings, the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, may in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386 , 389 , 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307. I am just observing this, to show the powers of the High Court, under section 401 and the powers of the District Court under section 399, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In this case, a private complaint under section 408, Indian Penal Code, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents. After trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found both the respondents guilty of the offences for which they were charged and convicted them. The Society finding that the sentence, imposed on the respondent was inadequate, filed a revision petition before the District Court to enhance the sentence. The learned District Judge missed the tenor of sections 399 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and passed an erroneous order holding that the petitioner-society can seek its remedy for enhancing the sentence, only in the High Court filing a revision and not before the District Court. This order has to be set aside as it is not in consonance with relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. The learned Counsel for the responded argues before me that when a person is convicted and a revision is filed by the private party against the conviction, the State steps in and takes care of the entitle case and only the State has got the power to file am appeal against the order under section 377 for enhancing the sentence and not the petitioner herein. This argument appears to be unsound. In this case, the State has not filed any appeal. But that does not bar the complainant-society from filing a revision before the District Court for enhanc-ing the sentence imposed on the respondents. Under the circumstances, the argument of learned Counsel, basing section 377, Criminal Procedure Code, that the State alone has to file an appeal for the enhancement of sentence, is baseless. I can understand that if the State is a party to the proceedings and sentence is awarded and the State is aggrieved by the sentence awarded by the Court, then the State can file an appeal or take part in the proceedings contending that the State is aggrieved by the lesser sentence awarded by the trial Court. In the present ease the complainant is the Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., and the State has no part to play and has nothing to do with the proceedings. In the present ease the complainant is the Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., and the State has no part to play and has nothing to do with the proceedings. In the circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel appear-ing for the respondent that it is only the State that steps in and the entire responsibility of filing an appeal or taking any action vests with the State is inconceivable. 9. In any event, as far as the present case is concerned, I find that the order of the District Judge, Madurai, is erroneous, perverse, contrary to law and has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the entire matter is remitted to the District Court, Madurai, for proper consideration, keeping in view, the tenor of sections 599 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Crl. R.C. No. 685 of 1977 is allowed. 10. Criminal Revision Case No. 684 of 1977.-In this case also, the complainant is the Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited, Madurai. In this case, the respondent has committed criminal breach of trust with the funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.12,186,03. A private complaint was lodged before the Sub-Divisional Magis-trate, Ramnad. After trial the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnad, found the accused guilty of the offence for which he was charged and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. Finding that the conviction and sentence was ina-dequate, the complainant society pre-ferred a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Judge of Ramnad at Madurai. 11. The revision filed was not numbered and on the unnumbered criminal revision petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant before the District Court argued that the revision before that Court is maintainable and the District Court has jurisdiction to look into the matter under section 399, Criminal Procedure Code, for the purpose of enhancing the sentence. It appeals, as could be seen from the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent herein, but not from the order of the learned District Judge, that the State Government alone can file an appeal against the sentence of the ground of its inadequacy and not the private complainant. Further, the order of the learned District Judge, Ramnad is as follows: “Heard. No revision lies to this Court for enhancement of sentence. Further, the order of the learned District Judge, Ramnad is as follows: “Heard. No revision lies to this Court for enhancement of sentence. Rejected.” This order of the learned District Judge is perverse and illegal and to be set aside. In a case like this, when an enhancement of sentence is asked for by the complainant, a detailed order is always desirable and not an order as passed by the District Judge, Ramnad. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein contends before me that it is. only the High Court which has jurisdiction and such a revision can be filed only in the High Court and not in the District Court. This argument appears to be unsound and baseless. If a private party has filed a complaint under section 408, Indian Penal Code, before a criminal Court and when the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the respondent, and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the sentence awarded by the Court, the only remedy that lies for the complainant who is not the State, is to file a revision¡ in the District Court and not in the High Court. Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the District Court to go into that mat-ter for its consideration. The learned District Judge has not considered the matter in a proper perspective. It cannot, in any event, be also contended that this is the second revision filed before this Court against the Order of. the District Judge. Prima facie I find that the dismissal of the unnumbered criminal revision petition by the District Court is perverse and contrary to law. 12. Under the circumstances, Crl. R.C. No. 684 of 1977 is allowed and the matter is remitted to the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai for consideration in a proper perspective. Ordered accordingly. V.K. ----- Revision allowed; case remanded.