JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali pronounced an order of conviction upon the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months besides sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof he stood sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The convict/accused standing aggrieved by the judgment recorded upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned whereupon he stood convicted for the offence for which he stood charged besides his standing aggrieved by the imposition of the afore-stated sentences upon him by the learned trial Court, he made a concert to assail them by preferring an appeal there from before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court on standing seized with an appeal preferred there before by the accused/convict affirmed the apposite conviction pronounced upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned whereas it modified the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed upon him by the learned trial Court to a sentence of his suffering imprisonment till the rising of the Court. 2. Imminently, the State of Himachal Pradesh did not under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prefer any appeal before the learned first appellate Court for seeking enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment of six months imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned upon the accused/convict in a term higher than the aforesaid term of imprisonment. However, the State of Himachal Pradesh, through the instant appeal, constituted here before under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. has sought enhancement of the term of imprisonment imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned first appellate Court whereupon he stood directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court, on anvil of it being grossly disproportionate vis-à-vis the concurrent renditions of conviction pronounced upon him by both the learned Courts below where within both the learned Courts below concluded qua his committing a heinous offence constituted under Section 325 IPC. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has contended qua the instant appeal constituted here before under Section 377 Cr.P.C. being statutorily not maintainable here before significantly with the State of Himachal Pradesh on conviction of the accused by the learned trial Magistrate on his facing trial there before, in sequel whereto a sentence of imprisonment as occurs in its apposite verdict stood imposed upon him, omitting to there from institute an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. before the learned first appellate Court whereas it thereat held the apposite statutory empowerment to make a concert there before for enhancing the sentence of imprisonment as stood pronounced by the learned trial Magistrate upon the accused/convict on the latter’s facing trial before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, in a term higher than the one to which he stood sentenced to undergo, on anvil of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned trial Magistrate being grossly inadequate besides grossly disproportionate vis-à-vis the order of conviction recorded upon him by the trial Magistrate qua the charge he faced there before under Section 325 IPC. 4. For testing the tenacity of the aforesaid submission addressed here before by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, an allusion to the relevant provisions engrafted in Section 377 Cr.P.C. is imperative, provisions whereof stand extracted herein-after:- “377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (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 its inadequacy- (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, 1 the Central Government may also direct] the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy- (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court. (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.” An incisive perusal whereof makes a graphic disclosure qua on imminent workability of sub-section (2) thereof standing evinced, workability whereof evidently is un-evincible here before, the State Government holding a discretion to from an order of conviction besides a sentence imposed upon an accused on the latter’s standing tried by any Court other than the High Court, to seek enhancement of the sentence pronounced upon the accused/convict by the learned trial Court, on anchorage of it being grossly inadequate, by its proceeding to prefer an appeal there from before the Court of Sessions, conspicuously, if the sentence stands recorded by the Sessions Court, also there from the State Government holds a statutory empowerment to before the High Court ventilate its apposite grievance under Section 377 Cr.P.C. The initial statutory bestowment under the afore-extracted provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon the State of Himachal Pradesh, to on an order of conviction besides a sentence of imprisonment standing pronounced upon the accused on his trial standing held by the learned trial Magistrate concerned, to on grounds of inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the convict/accused by the learned trial Magistrate seek its enhancement by its making an apposite motion there under before the Court of Sessions whereas evidently here at, the aforesaid initial statutory bestowment conferred upon the State of Himachal Pradesh comprised in its by preferring an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court assail the sentence pronounced upon the convict/accused by the learned trial Magistrate whereupon it held the statutory facilitation to seek enhancement of the sentence as stood imposed upon the accused on his trial standing held by the trial Magistrate, stood demonstrably omitted to be availed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereupon it is statutorily forbidden to avail here before the provisions of Section 377 Cr.P.C. for its thereupon making an apposite statutory endeavour for assailing besides seeking enhancement of the sentence pronounced upon the convict by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The aforesaid statutory provisions also stand aroused from the factum of the sentence pronounced upon the convict by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the latter’s standing seized with an appeal preferred there before by the accused/convict not rendering the apposite pronouncement made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being amenable to a construction qua its making ensuing from the learned Additional Sessions Judge trying the accused, reiteratedly when evidently the trial of the accused stood conducted by the learned trial Magistrate whereupon he stood convicted besides sentenced thereat alone the State Government held the statutory leverage to avail the apposite statutory provisions engrafted in Section 377 Cr.P.C. for its thereupon assailing before the learned Sessions Judge the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused by the trial Magistrate besides seek its enhancement there from. Reinforcingly, it was apt for the State Government to assail under Section 377 Cr.P.C. the sentence pronounced upon the accused/convict by the learned appellate Court only when it had held the accused to trial. However, when the learned appellate Court did not try the accused rather when the trial of the accused stood conducted by the learned trial Magistrate on consummation whereof the accused stood convicted besides stood sentenced to undergo imprisonment whereupon his standing aggrieved by the apposite pronouncement recorded by the learned trial Magistrate he preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court where before despite the State Government holding the apposite statutory empowerment to there before contest the adequacy of sentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court its yet waiving its apposite statutory empowerment renders its concert here before by anviling it upon Section 377 Cr.P.C. to warrant its standing discountenanced by this Court. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused qua the maintainability of the instant appeal constituted before this Court by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C., is upheld. However, at this stage, the learned Deputy Advocate General seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty reserved to the appellant herein to institute an appropriate revision petition before this Court for assailing the pronouncement of sentence imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned appellate Court. Prayer accepted. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, at this stage, the learned Deputy Advocate General seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty reserved to the appellant herein to institute an appropriate revision petition before this Court for assailing the pronouncement of sentence imposed upon the accused/convict by the learned appellate Court. Prayer accepted. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty stands reserved to the appellant herein to by instituting an apposite revision petition before this Court, impugn the sentence pronounced upon the accused/convict by the learned first appellate Court. Also it shall be open to the appellant herein to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Records of the Courts below be sent back forthwith.