Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the complainant petitioner for assailing the judgment dated 01.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Criminal Revision No. 54/2008 preferred by the petitioner and the judgment dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned ACJM, Gangapur City in Regular Criminal Case No. 1422/2003. 2. The trial court, while deciding the Criminal Case No. 1422/2003, convicted the respondent accused Madan Mohan for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to two years R.I. and three years R.I. respectively on each count. The petitioner complainant challenged the said judgment of the trial court by filing a revision seeking enhancement of sentences awarded by the trial court to the accused which came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by order dated 01.05.2010 which is assailed in this miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, I am of the firm opinion that the revision preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the clear language of Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Before the introduction of Section 372 in the Cr.P.C. (w.e.f. 31.12.2009), the power to enhance the sentences awarded by the trial court was available only to the High Court by virtue of Section 378 read with Section 386 Cr.P.C. The powers could only be exercised by the Court under Section 386 Cr.P.C. Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not empower the revisional court to enhance the sentences awarded by the Subordinate Court to an accused. 4. In this background and since, the revision preferred by the petitioner by itself was not maintainable, manifestly, the revisional court committed no error, illegality or perversity while rejecting the same by order dated 01.05.2010. 5. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 6. The instant miscellaneous petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.