ORDER: The question posed before this Court is this: “Whether the complainant is entitled to file a revision for enhancement of sentence before the Sessions Court, despite the provision under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., giving the State a right of appeal against the inadequate sentence before the High Court?” 2. The short facts are these: (a) Bennett Colman & Co Ltd., filed a private complaint against Janani Advertising Counsel and another for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, ultimately, convicted the accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,500 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. (b) Feeling aggrieved over the inadequancy of the sentence, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras praying for enhancement of sentence. Questioning the maintainability of the said revision, the accused filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1544 of 1997 on the ground that the complainant through the State Government has got a remedy to approach the High Court under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. and therefore, when an appeal is provided for, no revision would lie. (c) The said proposition was refuted by the complainant by filling a counter pointing out the provisions under Secs.377, 386, 397 and 401, Crl.P.C. thereby contending that revision is maintainable. (d) The learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition holding that the complainant, being a private party, is entitled to file a revision for enhancement of sentence. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the accused/petitioners under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. questioning the said order impugned. 3. Mr.Ashokan, the learned senior counsel, while attacking the impugned order would make the following submissions: (i) Sec.386(c), Crl.P.C. sets out powers to the Appellate Court in an appeal for enhancement of sentence. The said power is derived by an appeal preferred under Sec.386, Crl.P.C. Under the scheme of the Code, an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence can be preferred only by the State. Therefore, the powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Sec.386(c), Crl.P.C. cannot be exercised under the revisional jurisdiction. (ii) Under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., the High Court alone would be empowered to enhance the sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by the State. Therefore, a revision by the complainant against the inadequacy of sentence cannot be entertained by the Sessions Court. 4. (ii) Under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., the High Court alone would be empowered to enhance the sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by the State. Therefore, a revision by the complainant against the inadequacy of sentence cannot be entertained by the Sessions Court. 4. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the proposition of law that no revision by a private party against the inadequacy of sentence would lie before the Sessions Court has been laid down in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166, which has been subsequently approved by the Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.Krishnamoorthy and others, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 277. 5. In reply to the above submissions, Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent, would emphatically submit that the law laid down in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166, has been held to be bad law by the Full Bench of this Court in The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran, (1995)1 L.W. (Crl.) 403 and that the conjoint reading of Secs.397, 399 and 401, Crl.P.C. would make it clear that the powers have been conferred on both the Sessions Court and the High Court by way of revisional jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of the sentence, at the instance of the complainant. 6. To substantiate the same, he would cite the following authorities. (1) Prabhudas v. Babubhai, 1977 Crl.L.J. 1666; (2) Darshan Lal v. Indra Kumar, 1980 All.L.J. 217; (3) Baldel Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 Crl.L.J. 534; (4) Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1188; (5) Vinod Kumar v. Mohrawati, 1990 Crl.L.J. 2068; (6) The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran, (1995)1 L.W. (Crl.) 403; (7) Jayarajan v. Muhammed, 1999 M.L.J. (Crl.) 499. 7. Even at the outset, I shall point out that the contention of the learned senior counsel that the finding in In re. 7. Even at the outset, I shall point out that the contention of the learned senior counsel that the finding in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166, that the Sessions Court or the High Court cannot entertain a revision at the instance of a private party for enhancement of sentence and that the High Court alone has got the power for enhancement of sentence in the appeal as provided under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. and the same has to be approached by the State in both the cases arising out of the police charge-sheet and the private complaint, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.Krishnamoorthy, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 277, is factually incorrect, since the issue dealt with in that case by the Apex Court is quite different. 8. It is true that on reference by a single Judge of this Court, a Division Bench was constituted to go into the question and after referring to various relevant Sections of Crl.P.C., the Division Bench in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166, would hold that a revision by a private party is not maintainable even in the private complaint case, since under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., the State Government alone has been conferred right to approach the High Court by filing an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence in both the cases. 9. However, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the said judgment of the Division of this Court was held to be not good law by the Full Bench of this Court, specially constituted in a decision reported in The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran, (1995)1 L.W. (Crl.) 403 in view of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, the relevant observation made by the Full Bench of this Court is as follows: "When a decision of the Division Bench of this Court is contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court, the view of the Division Bench is not good law. As per Art.141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts including High Courts. As per Art.141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts including High Courts. In this matter, the decisions of the Supreme Court are clearly to the effect that a revision petition for enhancement of sentence by a private party is possible, there is no controversy subsisting and that view has to be followed." 10. Under those circumstances, it may not be correct for the learned senior counsel to contend that the view expressed by this Court in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.Krishnamoorthy, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 277. 11. On going through the decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.Krishnamoorthy, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 277, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court in yet another case dismissed the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise questioning the inadequacy of the sentence holding that under Sec.377(2), Crl.P.C., the appeal could be filed on the direction of the Central Government only in the cases when the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Police establishment or when the offence has been investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any central law other than the Criminal Procedure Code and that since the Central Excise officials are not empowered to make investigation under the Customs Act, the said appeal was not competent. This decision was reported in In re. Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 166. 12. The said judgment was challenged by the Collector of Central Excise by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that Sec..577(2), Crl.P.C. was not complied with, in view of the fact that the appeal was not filed on the direction of the Central Government, but the same had been merely filed by the Central Excise Officer being the complainant through their counsel, who happened to be the Central Government Public Prosecutor. 13. 13. In the said Judgment, the Apex Court did not go into the question whether the Customs Department is an agency empowered to make investigation within the meaning of Sec.377(2), Crl.P.C. Therefore, the decision reported in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.Krishnamoorthy, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 277 would not be of any use to the counsel for the petitioners, as it did not deal with the legal question, which has arisen in this case. 14. To put it differently, the case refe rred to above would relate to the question as to whether the complainant through the Central Government Prosecutor without the direction of the Central Government would file an appeal before the High Court under Sec.377(2), Crl.P.C. As noted above, we are not concerned with the said question in this case. 15. In the present case, the petitioners/ accused were convicted on the private complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant. It is also an admitted legal position that in view of Sec.377, Crl.P.C., an appeal against inadequacy of sentence could be filed only by the Stare before the High Court. 16. In the said situation, the question that would arise is as to whether the complainant, that too, in a private complaint case on being aggrieved over the inadequacy of sentence could approach the Sessions Court or the High Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction when appeal for enhancement is provided only to the State and not to the complainant. 17. To resolve this question, there is some light thrown on in the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Nandikara Kumaran, (1995)1 L.W. (Crl.) 403. 18. The Full Bench of this Court would refer to two Supreme Court decisions, viz., (1) Pratap v. State of U.P., 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 496 and (2) Bachan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 S.C.C. (Crl.) 174. 19. Let us now go through the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in those decisions. 20. 18. The Full Bench of this Court would refer to two Supreme Court decisions, viz., (1) Pratap v. State of U.P., 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 496 and (2) Bachan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 S.C.C. (Crl.) 174. 19. Let us now go through the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in those decisions. 20. The observation made in Pratap v. State of U.P., 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 496 is as follows: “Under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has got ample powers to issue notice to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced on the basis of a revision petition filed by a private party and the power of the High Court under this Section is one which the High Court can impose suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under that Section does is to draw the Court’s attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate Court. The fact that the Government did not do so does not affect the powers of the High Court under that Section.” 21. The observation made in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 S.C.C. (Crl.) 174 is as follows: “It has to be appreciated that in respect of the petition which was filed under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. for the exercise of the High Court’s powers of revision, it was permissible for it to exercise the power of a Court of appeal under Sec.386 for enhancement of the sentence, and if that had been done, there is no justification for the argument that the enhancement was illegal.” 22. The above observations would make it clear that the Supreme Court has given a clear-cut opinion that the private party can file a revision before the High Court in order to draw the Court’s attention to an illegal, improper and incorrect sentence, even though the State has not filed an appeal. 23. The above observations would make it clear that the Supreme Court has given a clear-cut opinion that the private party can file a revision before the High Court in order to draw the Court’s attention to an illegal, improper and incorrect sentence, even though the State has not filed an appeal. 23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, though initially would raise a specific plea that both the High Court and the Sessions Court will have no revisional jurisdiction to go into the inadequacy of sentence at the instance of the private party, would now contend that the said power can be invoked through revisional jurisdiction only by the High Court and not by the Sessions Court, as such power has not been conferred on the Sessions Court. 24. In the light of the said submission, let us now go into the relevant provisions in order to understand the basic principles so that it may further help to have a clear view about the legal position. 25. Under the old Criminal Procedure Code, there was no provision either for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence. However, the High Court, while exercising its revisional power under Sec.439 (old Code), was vested with discretion to enhance the sentences passed by the subordinate Courts, after affording, to the accused, an opportunity of being heard. 26. The Law Commission was of the view that the Government should have a right of appeal whenever it considered that an accused person had been let off with too light or inadequate sentence as it would affect public interest. Hence, Sec.377, Crl.P.C. was newly introduced in the new Code, giving to the State Government a right of appeal against inadequate sentence in appropriate cases. Let us now quote Sec.377, Crl.P.C. 27. Sec.377, Crl.P.C. reads as follows: “Appeal by the State Government against sentence: (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-sec.(2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy. (2)...... (2)...... (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.” 28. The reading of the above Section would reflect two significant features. (1) The first is that the power to entertain an appeal over the inadequacy of sentence under Sec.377 has been conferred only on the High Court. (2) The second is that the Government alone is empowered to seek for enhancement of sentence in an appeal "in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than the High Court". 29. It is thus clear that even against the sentence awarded in a case of private complaint, the State can direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence. 30. In view of the introduction of Sec.377, Crl.P.C. giving right only to the State to seek for enhancement of sentence in both categories of cases before the High Court, it is contended that the right given to a private party seeking for enhancement of sentence in both police and private cases under Sec.439, Crl.P.C. (old Code) had been taken away. But, this contention, in my opinion, may not hold good, in view of the introduction of Secs.399 and 401, Crl.P.C. 31. When the Code was amended, the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge were increased with a view to relieve some of the congestion of work in the High Courts. In the light of the said reason, Sec.399, Crl.P.C. was provided to enable the Sessions Court to "exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) to Sec.401, Crl.P.C." 32. In the light of the said reason, Sec.399, Crl.P.C. was provided to enable the Sessions Court to "exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) to Sec.401, Crl.P.C." 32. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C. reads as follows: "High Court’s powers of revision: (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Secs.386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Sec.307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the cast; shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Sec.392." 33. As per this Sub-section the High Court may, in its discretion exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sec.386 and other Sections of the Crl.P.C. Sec.386, Crl.P.C. deals with the powers of the appellate Court. It makes reference to appeals against convictions as well as to appeals under Secs.377 and 378, Crl.P.C. 34. Sec.386, Crl.P.C. reads as follows: "Powers of the Appellate Court: After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears and in case of an appeal under Sec.377 or Sec.378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may- (a) ... ... (b) ... ... (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence- (i) ... ... (ii) ... ... (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same; (d) ... ... (e) ... ... Provided that the sentence shall not to be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement." 35. Let us now see Sec.399, Crl.P.C. Sec.399, Crl.P.C. reads as follows: "Sessions Judge’s powers of revision: (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions. Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401. Let us now see Sec.399, Crl.P.C. Sec.399, Crl.P.C. reads as follows: "Sessions Judge’s powers of revision: (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions. Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under Sub-sec.(1), the provisions of Sub-secs.(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Sec.401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said Sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereof in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." 36. The reading of these Sections would reveal that the Sessions Court under Sec.399(2), Crl.P.C. could invoke the power of the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 37. It is true that the word "Sessions Court" is not included in Sec.377, Crl.P.C. But, Sec.401, Crl.P.C. would refer to the powers of the Court of Appeal under Sec.386, Crl.P.C. in which the reference about Sec.377, Crl.P.C. is made. The only difference between the powers of revision before the Sessions Court and the High Court, as could be seen from Secs.399 and 401, Crl.P.C. is this. 38. Sec.399, Crl.P.C. would provide "in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise......" In Sec.401, Crl.P.C., the Section begins with the words "in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself ox which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may exercise.......". Thus, it is clear that the word "otherwise comes to its knowledge" is absent in Sec.399, Crl.P.C. 39. But, the Sessions Court, when it calls for record by invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.399, Crl.P.C. would certainly invoke powers under Sec.401(1), Crl.P.C. for exercise of any of its powers on a Court of appeal by Sec.386, Crl.P.C., etc., subject to the restriction contained therein. 40. But, the Sessions Court, when it calls for record by invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.399, Crl.P.C. would certainly invoke powers under Sec.401(1), Crl.P.C. for exercise of any of its powers on a Court of appeal by Sec.386, Crl.P.C., etc., subject to the restriction contained therein. 40. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Sec.397, Crl.P.C. Sec.397(1), Crl.P.C. runs as under: "Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its and his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record." 41. The reading of this Section would show that the High Court as well as the Sessions Court may call for record of any proceeding of any inferior criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence, etc. Thus, the Sessions Judge could examine the question in relation to the inadequacy of sentence in view of the powers conferred on him by Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.397, Crl.P.C. 42. As noted above, under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.399, Crl.P.C., the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 43. From this, it will follow that if the High Court could enhance the sentence, the Sessions Judge can also do it, as contemplated under Sec.401(1), Crl.P.C. According to Clause (c) of Sec.386 of the Code, the appellate Court can, in an appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. 44. 44. It is true that the right of appeal has been conferred on the State to approach the Court under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. It is also true that under Sec.401(4), Crl.P.C. where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision can be entertained. But, this would apply to the person who is competent to file an appeal and this would not preclude the right of the complainant to seek for revision questioning the inadequacy of sentence, since Sec.401(4) provides no proceeding by way of revision can be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. 45. The State has got a right to file an appeal under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., and so, the State cannot be allowed to file a revision. In other words, in the light of the right conferred, the Government alone could file an appeal for enhancement of sentence and the private party would not be allowed to file an appeal under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. To put it differently, the State could file appeal alone and not revision. 46. Thus, the right of the State to approach the High Court seeking for enhancement of the sentence would not preclude the complainant, who is the real aggrieved party to seek for the enhancement of sentence, from filing a revision either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. 47. To put it in a nutshell, though there is no right given to the complainant to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence, he is well within his right to file revision before the Sessions Court under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. or the High Court under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 48. In this context it should be taken note of Sec.417, Crl.P.C., as it stood before its amendment by 1956 Act by which the State alone could file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed in any case. In other words, an appeal could be filed by the State in a case based on police charge sheet as well as in a case arising out of a private complaint. At that time, the complainant, did not have the right of appeal; so to say that the complainant could only move the State to file an appeal. 49. In other words, an appeal could be filed by the State in a case based on police charge sheet as well as in a case arising out of a private complaint. At that time, the complainant, did not have the right of appeal; so to say that the complainant could only move the State to file an appeal. 49. But, it was, however, held by the Apex Court in Ram Gopal Ganapatrai v. State of Bombay, 1958 M.L.J. (Crl.) 217 at 223, in the light of Sec.417, Crl.P.C. that a complainant could file a revision. After the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1956, the right of appeal has been conferred only on the complainant in a case started on a private complaint. 50. Similar position may lie at the present situation also, in view of the fact that the private party could invoke Sec.377, Crl.P.C. to file an appeal only through the State. 51. In a case arising out of a police charge sheet, which ended in acquittal, the State alone could file an appeal. In this context, it is further held by the Apex Court that the first informant could file a revision against the order of acquittal in a case arising out of police charge sheet. 52. Sec.439(5), Crl.P.C. (old), which is analogous to Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.401 of the present Code, barred a revision at the instance of a party who has a right of appeal. However, it was held that since an informant did not possess a right of appeal in a case arising out of police charge-sheet, a revision filed by him against an order of acquittal was not barred by Sec .439(5) of the Code. 53. Similar position would lie in this case as well. Under Sec.377, Crl.P.C., the complainant could only move the Government to file an appeal. The direct appeal by the complainant is not maintainable. But, it does not mean that the complainant would not be competent to file a revision. 54. Similarly, although Sec.401(4), Crl.P.C. would be a bar for revision by a party who has got a right of appeal, since the complainant has no right of appeal, he could very well maintain a revision either under Sec.397 or under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 55. But, it does not mean that the complainant would not be competent to file a revision. 54. Similarly, although Sec.401(4), Crl.P.C. would be a bar for revision by a party who has got a right of appeal, since the complainant has no right of appeal, he could very well maintain a revision either under Sec.397 or under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 55. Thus, in view of interpretation of the Apex Court on the analogy of Secs.417 and 439 of the old Code, it is obvious that the complainant can file a revision against inadequate sentence, despite the provision contained in Secs.377(1) and 401(4) of the present Code. 56. Further, it is permissible for the Sessions Court under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before the trial Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by that inferior Court. 57. It is also clear from Sec.399, Crl.P.C. that the Sessions Judge can exercise all or any of the powers which can be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C. Under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C., the High Court can exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Secs.386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Sessions by Sec.307. 58. Sec.399(1), Crl.P.C. provides revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. But, the phrase “otherwise comes to its knowledge” found in Sec.401(1), Crl.P.C. is absent in Sec.399(1), Crl.P.C. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that the Sessions Judge is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction which otherwise comes to his knowledge and as such, the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is limited in the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called for by himself. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Sessions Judge has the powers to enhance the sentence in revision, subject to the limitation set forth in Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C. 59. The bar under Sec.401 (4) Crl.P.C. would not apply to the complainant, since he is not competent to file an appeal as provided under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. Thus, it is clear that the legislature did not exclude exercise of the powers of revision totally where an appeal lies. Instead, there is a partial exclusion of the revision proceeding at the instance of the party, who could have appealed. Instead, there is a partial exclusion of the revision proceeding at the instance of the party, who could have appealed. 60. When the concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred on both the High Court and the Sessions Court under Sec.396(1), Crl.P.C. and more particularly when Sec.399(1), Crl.P.C. would provide the Sessions Judge while dealing with the revision can exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.401, Crl.P.C., it would follow that if the High Court, while dealing with the revision can enhance the sentence, the Sessions Judge also can do it. 61. Thus, it is evident that the failure of the State to prefer an appeal before the High Court challenging the inadequacy of the sentence under Sec.377, Crl.P.C. will not preclude the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court to consider the inadequacy of the sentence on the basis of the revision filed by the complainant or the private party challenging the inadequacy of the sentence, except in such a case where revision is barred under Sec.401(4), Crl.P.C. 62. It is also admitted that in this case the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Sessions Court against the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. Therefore, the Sessions Court will have an opportunity to consider both these aspects namely, the propriety of the finding on conviction and the legality of the sentence in both the appeals filed by petitioners/ accused and the revision filed by the respondent/ complainant. 63. In view of the facts stated above, it can be safely held that the Sessions Court has got simple power as the revisional Court to enhance the sentence in a revision preferred by the complainant or the interested party, even though the State, who is the competent party has not filed an appeal before the High Court and as such, the order of the Sessions Court is perfectly valid in law. 64. There is yet another feature which involves necessary sequel to the new scheme of conferring wide powers on the Sessions Judge authorising him to dispose of the revision finally. Sec.438 of the old Code which required the Sessions Judge to report to the High Court the result of examination of proceedings records of which were called for by him, is wholly omitted. 65. Sec.438 of the old Code which required the Sessions Judge to report to the High Court the result of examination of proceedings records of which were called for by him, is wholly omitted. 65. This new scheme also omits the provision for exercise of powers by the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government contained in Sec.435 of the old Code and makes all the Executive Magistrate whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of powers of revision of the Sessions Judge under Secs.397 and 398 of the new Code. 66. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the fact that notwithstanding of the fact that there was the recommendation of the Law Commission in its 14th Report to exclude “petitions against order of acquittal and for enhancement of sentence” from the powers of the Sessions Judge to pass final orders in revision, the Legislature did not make any such exclusion while conferring powers on the Sessions Judge by Sec.399(1), Crl.P.C. 67. The Law Commission in its 14th Report had observed as under: “We are, therefore, of the view that Sessions Judges may well be invested with powers to pass final orders in revision in all matters other than petitions against orders of acquittal and for enhancement of sentence.” 68. Despite the said recommendation, the legislature conferred powers of revision to the Sessions Court not only under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. to call for the records to examine the correctness of sentence, but also would confer powers vested with the High Court under Sec.401(1), Crl.P.C. to the Sessions Court by virtue of Sec.399, Crl.P.C. 69. These things would make it clear that the cases for enhancement of sentence at the instance of the private party which would have normally gone to the High Court in respect of sentences passed by the Courts subordinate to the Sessions Judge, would now go to the Sessions Court and thereby the object of relieving the congestion of work in High Courts in part will be achieved to some extent. 70. According to Clause (c) of Sec.386, Crl.P.C., the Appellate Court can in the appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. 70. According to Clause (c) of Sec.386, Crl.P.C., the Appellate Court can in the appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. In view of this provision contained in Sec.386, Crl.P.C., it should be held that the High Court while dealing with revision, can enhance the sentence. 71. As stated earlier, the powers of a Sessions Judge while dealing with a revision are the same as that of the High Court. When, the High Court can enhance the sentence while dealing with the revision, the Sessions Judge can also do so. 72. In view of the above discussion, my conclusion is as follows: “The complainant/ first informant is entitled to file a revision for enhancement of sentence either before the Sessions Court under Secs.397 and 399, Crl.P.C. or before the High Court under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. both in private complaint cases and police charge-sheeted cases, since the Sessions Judge has got power to enhance the sentence in revision, even though the State, who has been conferred with the power of filing an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of sentence, has not filed the same.” 73. In view of the above conclusion, this petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. This Sessions Court is directed to take up the revision for enhancement of sentence filed by the respondent/ complainant and the appeal against the conviction filed by the petitioners/ accused and dispose of the same in accordance with law.