K. RAMANNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 16399/97 and order dated 26-9-2001 passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Crl. R. P. No. 239/99, whereby the Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore, convicted this petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to "the N. I. Act") and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount he shall suffer S. I. for two months. Whereas, 1st Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed Crl. R. P. No. 239/99 filed by the respondent for inadequate sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 397, Cr. P. C. Therefore, assailing both the orders the petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the learned sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and exercised revisional jurisdiction provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which amounts to abuse of due process of law and miscarriage of Justice. Further, it is alleged that, though the alleged cheque, as shown in the complaint is totally different from that of cheque mentioned in the complaint but the learned Sessions judge has not taken into consideration about the defence of this revision petitioner accused. On this ground alone instead of dismissing the revision petition the learned Sessions Judge allowed it and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 10. 000/- to rs. 65. 000/- which is illegal, abuse of due process of law and miscarriage of justice. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this case are that the revision petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,0007- from the respondent on 6-2-1996 and executed consideration receipt agreeing to repay the same with interest within 10 months. On demand he issued a cheque dated 5-10-1996 for rs. 60. 000/ -. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said amount the respondent presented the said cheque to his bank but it was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Therefore the demand notice has been issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. Even then the petitioner failed to pay the amount. 60. 000/ -. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said amount the respondent presented the said cheque to his bank but it was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Therefore the demand notice has been issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. Even then the petitioner failed to pay the amount. Therefore he filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the N. T. Act, after recording the sworn statement of the respondent Addl. C. M. M. took cognizance and issued the process. After appearance of this revision petitioner accused a charge was framed, thereafter the respondent examined herself as P. W. 1 and got marked the documents Exs. PI to P5 and closed her case. But the petitioner herein did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove his contention/defence, therefore after considering the materials placed on record the Addl. C. M. M. convicted and sentence this revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 10. 000/ -. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order he preferred Crl. A. 206/1999. After reappreciation of the evidence and the materials placed on record the learned I Addl. City Civil and sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. In the meantime the respondent-complainant had filed Crl. R. P. No. 239/99 for inadequate sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate on the accused who was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. The learned Addl. City Civil and Sessions judge, after considering the materials placed on record enhanced the fine amount from rs. 10. 000/- to Rs. 65. 000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, the sentence was also enhanced to undergo simple imprisonment from two months to 6 months. ( 4 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. ( 5 ) DURING the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even though there is no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition filed by the respondent complainant the learned addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, enter tained the revision petition and enhanced the order of sentence of fine amount awarded by the trial Court from Rs. 10. 000/- to rs. 65,000/- which is incorrect and illegal and amounts to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore the orders passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, enter tained the revision petition and enhanced the order of sentence of fine amount awarded by the trial Court from Rs. 10. 000/- to rs. 65,000/- which is incorrect and illegal and amounts to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore the orders passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the enhancing of the fine by the learned Sessions Judge in crl. R. P. No. 239/99, filed under sections 397 and 401, Cr. P. C. , are liable to be quashed. Further it is submitted that under Section 374, Cr. P. C. is a bar that the complainant cannot file any revision of appeal for enhancement of sentence. Therefore the revision petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable as the sessions Judge has no powers. Under Section 377 (3j, Cr. P. C. an appeal lies against the inadequacy of the sentence passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court as well "as the learned sessions Judge are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in fact the trial Court convicted this petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N. I. Act and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- which has been challenged by the revision petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge under Crl. A. No. 206/99 which came to be dismissed. Further it is submitted that the petitioner without challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal appeal preferred this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. which is not at all maintainable. As such there is no abuse of due process of law or miscarriage of justice therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as it is not at all maintainable. ( 7 ) I have carefully reviewed both the orders under challenge passed by the Courts below. At first will take up for consideration the question whether the respondent-complainant is entitled to file a revision or appeal for enhancement of sentence. Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, there was no provision either for the State or private complainant to prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence. At first will take up for consideration the question whether the respondent-complainant is entitled to file a revision or appeal for enhancement of sentence. Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, there was no provision either for the State or private complainant to prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence. But the High Court while exercising its revisional powers was vested with the discretion to enhance the sentence passed by the subordinate Court that too after affording an opportunity to the accused of being heard. Therefore, Section 377, Cr. P. C. , 1973, empowers the State the right of appeal against inadequacy of sentence. But the right to file an appeal against inadequacy of sentence has not been provided or given to a private complainant. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the petitioner herein has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in Crl. A. No. 206/99. After reappraisal the materials placed on record by both the parties the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge by its judgment dated 21-3-2000 dismissed the appeal. But the respondent herein who filed a private complaint for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 60. 000/- preferred a revision under section 397, Cr. P. C,, before the I Addl. Sessions Judge which came to be allowed and enhanced the sentence. A similar contention was taken by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. R. P. No. 239/99. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and the materials placed on record came to the conclusion that the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition under Section 397, Cr. P. C. for enhancement of sentence. Under Section 397, cr. P. C. equal powers are given both to the high Court as well as Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of any proceedings pending before any inferior criminal court within its local jurisdiction for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. In the instant case the respondent herein has rightly preferred a revision petition before the I Addl. Sessions Judge for inadequacy of sentence passed by the trial Court. In the instant case the respondent herein has rightly preferred a revision petition before the I Addl. Sessions Judge for inadequacy of sentence passed by the trial Court. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water, ( 9 ) UNDER Section 138 of N. I. Act the order of sentence was passed by the trial Court awarding lesser sentence even though the amount covered under the cheque for rs. 60. 000/- but the trial Court while sentencing this petitioner-accused awarded only a fine of Rs. 10. 000/ -. Therefore the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition under Session 397, Cr. P. C. before the learned Sessions Judge. If the complainant proves the charges levelled against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138, of N. I. Act the magistrate may impose the sentence or the fine double the cheque amount. Therefore, it can be said that the Magistrate misread the provisions of Section 138, of N. I. Act while imposing the fine of Rs. 10. 000/ -. Therefore under Section 397, Cr. P. C. the respondent has rightly filed a revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge has after appreciation of the materials placed on record enhanced the sentence of fine amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 65. 000/ -. ( 10 ) IN the case of Rajendran v. Usha rani, (2001 (2) Mad WN (Cri) DCC 72) wherein the Madras High Court has held that a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable against the order passed in revision by the Sessions Court as it amounts to second revision. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, I do not find any good reasons to interference with the orders passed by both trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .