Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 355 (AP)

Paladugu Srimannarayana v. Bonu Seetha Devi

2003-03-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had submitted a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, West Godavari, Eluru, against the 1st respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The same was tried as C. C. No. 63 of 2002. After trial, the trial Court found the 1st respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, it convicted her for the same. The trial Court sentenced the 1st respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This revision is filed by the complainant alleging inter-alia that having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent was found to have issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/-, the same having been dishonoured when presented, letting of the 1st respondent with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- has virtually resulted in miscarriage of justice. ( 2 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 5. 2. 2003. The 1st respondent since entered appearance, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that even the conviction against her was without basis and challenging the conviction and sentence against her, she had preferred Crl. A. No. 224 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru. ( 3 ) IN as much as, the conviction and sentence against the 1st respondent are the subject matter of appeal preferred by her, this Court has considered the feasibility of permitting the petitioner herein to prosecute her remedy of revision before the same Court to avoid conflict of decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that the revision is filed seeking enhancement of the sentence against the 1st respondent and the High Court alone is competent to undertake the same. ( 4 ) THIS revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. While Section 397 of Cr. P. C. is the source of power of revision, Section 401 Cr. P. C. ,provides the manner in which it is to be exercised. Section 397 of Cr. P. C. confers the power of revision on the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions. The similarity of the powers of the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions is evident from Section 399 of Cr. P. C. ,provides the manner in which it is to be exercised. Section 397 of Cr. P. C. confers the power of revision on the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions. The similarity of the powers of the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions is evident from Section 399 of Cr. P. C. They are almost identical. The High Court as well as Sessions Court are precluded from converting the order of acquittal into the one of conviction, in view of the bar contained in Sub-Section-3 of Section 401 Cr. P. C. So far as the power to enhance the sentence is concerned, Section 377 Cr. P. C. , enables the State Government to prefer an appeal as regards inadequacy of sentence. Such appeals are required to be filed in the High Court alone. For cases other than those provided for under Section 377 Cr. P. C. , one has invariably to fall back on Section 397 Cr. P. C. The power under Section 397 Cr. P. C. , vested with the High Court or Sessions Court is so wide that it can examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the two important aspects, namely, finding and sentence. If the High Court or Sessions Court is satisfied that the trial Court was not correct in the matter of finding or sentence, it can pass appropriate orders subject however, to the condition that an order of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction. When the conferment of these powers are similar as regards High Court and Sessions Court, there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court, where the criminal appeal No. 224 of 2002 is pending. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the office is directed to return the papers to the petitioner so as to enable him to file a revision, if he is so advised. If the petitioner files a revision before the Sessions Court, West Godavari, the learned Sessions Judge shall make over the same to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru and he in turn shall hear the revision along with the criminal appeal No. 224 of 2002. If the petitioner files revision as indicated above within two weeks from today, the same shall be treated as having been filed within the period of limitation.