JUDGMENT - Puranik S.W., J.-Criminal Reference No. 2/1981 and 3/1981 even though arising out of two different prosecutions and two different references made by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, since the question sent for reference is identical, both the said references can be answered by this common order. Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981 is also in respect of the same prosecution in which the applicant Manohar was convicted and for which reference has been made vide Criminal Reference No. 2/1981. Hence the said revision also can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri G. A. Paunikar, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor for the State appeared in all the three matters on behalf of the State, while Kumari N. R. Sarin, Advocate (appointed) for applicant Manohar. who is respondent in Criminal Reference No. 2/1981 and applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981. Shri P. Y. Deshpande. Advocate, appeared for respondent No. 1: Kishorilal in Criminal Reference No. 3/1981, while Shri Shirpurkar and Shapurji, Advocates, appeared for respondents 2 and 3 in the said reference. All the aforesaid counsel of the parties were heard. 3. The :learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, vide his references registered as 2/1981 and 3/1981 respectively has forwarded the papers on the following questions of law: (l) Whether the Court of Sessions suo motu can enhance the sentence of an accused in fit cases? (2) Whether Court of Sessions is empowered to entertain a revision application and enhance the sentence of an accused convicted in a private complaint case or in police cases at the instance of parties other than State? 4. Criminal Reference No. 2/1981 arises out of the prosecution of respodent Manohar, who was working as Talathi at villages Ashtagaon, Gokulpur, Inhur, Nasnapur, Gujarmadhi and lrur, etc. The said Patwari Talathi was required to receive Government dues from the agriculturists and deposit the same within IS days in the Government treasury by a regular challan. It was alleged by the prosecution that the said Patwari Manohar during his tenure of office collected several amounts totalling Rs. 13,138.77 paise, but failed to deposit the same for a period much longer than the period stipulated. The prosecution furtljer alleges that one Shri Abrol, Revenue Inspector of that area, inspected the records and Kird books maintained by the accused-respondent Manohar and found the defalcation to the extent of Rs. 13,138.77 paise. 13,138.77 paise, but failed to deposit the same for a period much longer than the period stipulated. The prosecution furtljer alleges that one Shri Abrol, Revenue Inspector of that area, inspected the records and Kird books maintained by the accused-respondent Manohar and found the defalcation to the extent of Rs. 13,138.77 paise. He, therefore, sent a report against accused Manohar to the Naib-Tahsildar, who in turn lodged the complaint with the police. Accused-Manohar was, therefore, prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, for the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The accused Manohar admitted all the facts and consequently acting on this admission, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 6. After the said conviction accused Manohar preferred criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, vide Criminal Appeal No. 148/1980. The learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, by his judgment dated 12th December, 1980, came to the conclusion that the conviction of the accused Manohar on his own admission was valid legal and confirmed the same. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal the learned Sessions Judge thought that the sentence awarded to the accused was inadequate. He also found that the cases of defalcation of Government money were on the increase and were harmful to the society putting into jeopardy the proper working of the Government. He, therefore, issued a notice to the accused for enhancement of sentence of accused Manohar and suo motu registered a revision petition by the learned Sessions Judge. On hearing the accused Manohar and the Public Prosecutor of the State, the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, has made references to this Court under section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The accused Manohar feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his criminal appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, and also by the reference, has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981, which is also being disposed of by this common order. 8. The facts giving rise to the Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981 may be briefly narrated as under. One Kishorilal has filed a complaint against two accused persons Manilal and Smt. Lilabai Manilal. 8. The facts giving rise to the Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981 may be briefly narrated as under. One Kishorilal has filed a complaint against two accused persons Manilal and Smt. Lilabai Manilal. After the complaint was registered evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that both the accused Manilal and Lilabai were guilty of offence under sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as follows: He sentenced accused No. 1 Manilal to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. He also sentenced accused Manilal to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 for offence under section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court also convicted accused No.2 Lilabai but released her on probation bond of Rs. 1000 for a period of two years with directions to be of good behaviour and on the condition that she executes a probation bond of Rs. 1000. 9. Both the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.33 (1981 for setting aside their order of conviction. The said appeal is pending before the Session Judge, Amravati. The original complainant Kishorilal also felt that the sentence awarded to the two accused was inadequate and preferred revision application registered as Criminal Revision No. 18/1981 before the Sessions Judge, Amravati. He sought enhance of sentence passed against both the accused-respondents. In this Criminal Reference No.3 /1981, preferred by the State of Maharashtra, respondent NO.1 Kishorilal is the respondent No. 1, who is the original complainant while respondents 2 and 3 are two accused Manilal and Lilabai. 10. The questions referred to by the learned Sessions Judge have already been reproduced above. 11. The law regarding the revisional powers of the High Court in respect of enhancement of sentence is already settled by the Supreme Court. The judgment in (Eknath Shankarrao Mukawar v. State of Maharashtra)1, is of relevance for this case. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as follows : “We should at once remove the misgiving that the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has abolished the High Court's power of enhancement of sentence by exercising revisional jurisdiction, suo motu. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as follows : “We should at once remove the misgiving that the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has abolished the High Court's power of enhancement of sentence by exercising revisional jurisdiction, suo motu. The provision for appeal against inadequacy of sentence by the State Government or the Central Government does not lead to such a conclusion. High Court's power of enhancement of sentence, in an appropriate case, by exercising suo motu power of revision is still extent under section 307 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, inasmuch as the High Court can by 'by its if call for the record of proceedings of any inferior criminal Court under its jurisdiction. The provision .of section 401(4) is a bar to party, who does not appeal, when appeal lies; but applies in revision. Such a legal bar under section 401(4) does not stand in the way of the High Court's exercise of power of revision, suo motu, which continues as before in the new Code.” 12. In (Nadir Khan v. State (Delhi Administration))2, Goswami, J. has observed as follows: “It is true the new Code has expressly given a right to the State under section 377, Criminal Procedure Code to appeal against inadequacy of sentence which was not there under the old Code That, however, does not exclude revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to act suo motu for enhancement of sentence in appropriate cases. What is an appropriate case has to be left to the discretion of the High Court. This Court will be slow to interfere with exercise of such discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution.” Goswami, J. further observed: “Section 401,expressly preserves the power of the High Court, by itself to call for the records without the intervention of another agency and has kept alive the ancient exercise of power when something extraordinary comes to the knowledge of the High Court. The provisions under section 401 read with section 386(a)(iii), Criminal Procedure Code are clearly, supplemental to those under section 377 whereby appeals are provided for against inadequacy of sentence at the instance of the State Government or Central Government as the case may be. The provisions under section 401 read with section 386(a)(iii), Criminal Procedure Code are clearly, supplemental to those under section 377 whereby appeals are provided for against inadequacy of sentence at the instance of the State Government or Central Government as the case may be. There is, therefore, absolutely no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in exercising the power of revision, suo motu, for enhancement of sentence in this case.” Thus as far as the powers of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction are concerned, the law is well settled and the High Court can act on an application by interested party or by the State or suo motu on its behalf regarding enhancement of sentence. 13. The question posed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, is, whether the Sessions Judge has similar powers under its revisional jurisdiction. 14. The new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, came into force from 1974. The provisions regarding revisional powers which were in existence in the old Code have been modified in the new Code. The High Court's power of revision are given in section 40.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are equivalent to the powers of the Court of appeal as stated under sections 386, 389, 390 and 391. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms states that” High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction ….”. Section 399 of the Code defines Sessions Judge's powers of revision and it states that the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of the section 401. Thus by the new Code of the Criminal Procedure, the High Court and the Sessions Judge have been given identical power of revision. It, therefore follows that if as laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can suo motu enhance the sentence awarded to an accused or on revision preferred by the aggrieved party, then the same powers can equally be utilised by the Session Judge. 15. The Division Bench of Our High Court has also dealt with same question in the matter of (Janardan Sarvot tam Rao v. The State of Maharashtra)3. 15. The Division Bench of Our High Court has also dealt with same question in the matter of (Janardan Sarvot tam Rao v. The State of Maharashtra)3. The Division Bench has laid down that the Sessions Judge under the new Code has all the powers of the High Court which are enumerated by the Legislature in section 386. Enhancing the sentence is one of the power included in that section and the Sessions Judge can now exercise that power in view of the clear provisions of section 399(1) read with section 401(1). The said ruling further lays down that to the revision application entertained by the Sessions Judge suo motu the provisions of the new Code were attracted and he was entitled to exercise all the powers which the appellate Court can exercise including the power of enhancement of sentence. The order of enhancement of sentence by the Sessions Judge was not unlawful or beyond his competence. 16. It is, therefore, apparent that under the Scheme of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the powers of the revision of the Sessions Judge are enlarged as compared to his rights under the old Code. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Sessions Judge under the new Code has all the powers of the High Court which are enumerated by the Legislature in section 386 of the Code and since enhancement of sentence is one of the ,Powers included in that section and the Sessions Judge can now exercise that power in view of the clear provisions of section 399 (l) read with section 401(1) the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court can be exercised independently in their own rights. 17. In view of the above discussion both the references Nos. 2/1981 and 3/1981 can be answered as follows: As regards question No. I, it is answered in the affirmative. As regards question No.2, the same is also answered in the affirmative. 18. That leaves us with the criminal revision 80/1981. In the instant revision the accused Manohar is challenging his conviction under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction by the trial Court was on the basis of the admissions made by him in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal preferred by the accused Manohar was dismissed after hearing both the parties. His conviction by the trial Court was on the basis of the admissions made by him in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal preferred by the accused Manohar was dismissed after hearing both the parties. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is perused and also the reasonings given by him while dismissing the appeal against conviction. The reasons are cogent and valid. No material prejudice has been caused to the accused even though only one prosecution witness, namely, Abrol the Revenue Inspector was examined at the trial. This is particularly so in view of his own admission in respect of all the documents produced on record. The accused has further asserted that he has recovered Rs. 13,000 and odd during his tenure of office, but he has repaid an amount of Rs. 8,300 and odd and still he has to pay back Rs. 700 and odd. This admission in terms goes to show his implicity in the commission of offence. It is also brought on record that the amounts recovered by him were not credited to 'the Government treasury within 15 days. But certain part payments were credited by the accused Manohar after a lapse of 10 months and that too part of the amounts were deducted from his wages. Thus it is not a case where interference would be called for in the concurrent findings of the Court below. The revision application, therefore, has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. 19. Criminal Reference Nos. 2/1981 and 3/1981 are answered in the affirmative as stated above. Criminal Revision Application No. 80/1981 is dismissed. Both the cases are remanded back with records to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Amravati, for deciding the same regarding the quantum of sentence to be awarded, according to law. Revision dismissed.