ORDER : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. In this revision petition, accused challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A No.411/2009 whereby the Sessions Court enhanced the punishment imposed against him in C.C.No.308/2005 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba. 2. Crl.A No.411/2009 was an appeal preferred by the State before the Sessions Court, Thalassery under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C ') seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC '). 3. The allegation against the accused was that on 29.5.2005 at 21 hrs. accused drove an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL13/D 8621 through the Public Road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and when it reached at Chittariparamba, it collided with a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA01/R-4013 ridden by the defacto complainant with one Zubair as pillion rider. The rider of the motor cycle and the pillion rider sustained injuries in the said incident. The pillion rider Zubair succumbed to the injuries. It was also alleged that accused had no driving licence for driving the autorickshaw, the accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 279 , 338, 304A of IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act . 4. It is an admitted case that initially when the learned Magistrate read over and explained the charge against the accused, he pleaded not guilty to the charges and accordingly prosecution examined certain witnesses. It is also an admitted fact that while the trial was thus proceeding, accused filed Crl.M.P.No.789/2009 before the trial court namely Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba for permitting him to plead guilty to the charges levelled against him and the learned Magistrate allowed Crl.M.P No.789/2009. Accordingly the revision petitioner/accused pleaded guilty to the charges. Accepting the plea of guilty made by the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC . Accordingly the revision petitioner/accused pleaded guilty to the charges. Accepting the plea of guilty made by the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC . He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC . Sentence in default of payment of fine was also ordered by the learned Magistrate. 5. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence, the State of Kerala preferred appeal as Crl.A No.411/2009 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. In appeal, the appellate court enhanced the sentence for the offence under Section 304A of IPC . The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC was enhanced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and the sentence in default of payment of fine ordered by the learned Magistrate remains unaltered in appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, enhancing the sentence, accused has preferred this revision petition, mainly contending that before enhancing the sentence against him for the offence under Section 304A IPC , he was not heard by the appellate court as mandated under Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C . The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused contended that in view of Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C , it was mandatory for the appellate court to grant an opportunity to the accused to show cause against such enhancement of sentence and therefore according to the learned counsel for the accused, the impugned judgment in Crl.A No.411/2009 of Sessions Court, Thlassery is to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the accused pleaded guilty before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, there was no further necessity to hear the accused on the question of enhanced punishment. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, we can have a look at Section 377 Cr.P.C , which reads as under: “377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, we can have a look at Section 377 Cr.P.C , which reads as under: “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 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, [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 Court of Session or, as the case may be 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. (4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code , the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.” 9. Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C provides that when an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Sessions or as the case may be the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C provides that when an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Sessions or as the case may be the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. It further provides that while showing cause against such enhancement of sentence, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. 10. The impugned judgment would reveal that in the case at hand before enhancing the sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC , the Sessions court did not provide the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement of sentence as provided under Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C , which is a mandatory provision. 11. In Radheyshyam and another v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687 , which was a case wherein the High Court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment for life to undergo imprisonment for the rest of their life on the finding that the offence falls in the category of rarest of rare cases, without the accused having given an opportunity to defend their case as to why the enhanced sentence should not be granted, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the enhanced sentence by observing as follows: ‘No doubt that the High Court could have itself exercised suo moto powers and enhanced the sentence. However, prior to doing so, the High Court was required to give a notice to the appellants. Admittedly, the same has not been done. As a result of the judgment and order of the High Court, the sentence awarded to the appellants has been enhanced without the appellants having an opportunity to defend their case as to why the enhanced sentence should not be granted. In that view of the matter, we partly allow the appeal.’ 12. In Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab ( 1984 (Supp) SCC 518 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the sentence which was enhanced by the High Court on the ground that the High Court did not issue notice calling upon the appellants/accused to show cause why the sentence imposed upon them be not enhanced before doing so. In Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab ( 1984 (Supp) SCC 518 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the sentence which was enhanced by the High Court on the ground that the High Court did not issue notice calling upon the appellants/accused to show cause why the sentence imposed upon them be not enhanced before doing so. It was held that rules of natural justice as also the prescribed procedure require that the sentence imposed on the accused cannot be enhanced without giving notice to the accused and the opportunity to be heard on the proposed action. 13. In Kumar Ghimirey v. The State of Sikkim ( MANU/SC/0581/2019 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court again reiterated the said position of law and held that enhancement of sentence is permissible only after giving notice of enhancement to the accused. In Para 13 it was held as follows: “13. Present is a case where the High Court has enhanced the sentence in appeal filed by the Accused challenging his conviction. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the procedure prescribed Under Section 386 proviso has not been followed by the High Court since no notice for enhancement was issued to the Appellant has not been refuted by the learned Counsel for the State. There can be no doubt with regard to the power of the High Court to enhance the sentence in an appropriate case. The High Court can also exercise its power Under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure in an appropriate case. Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the power of revision to the High Court. The High Court Under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure can exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure The High Court could have very well exercised power Under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 386(b) (iii), could have enhanced the sentence but the said course is permissible only after giving notice of enhancement. The power of the High Court has been accepted and reiterated by this Court in a large number of cases. Reference is made to the case in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0130/1984 : 1984 (Supp) SCC 518 . The power of the High Court has been accepted and reiterated by this Court in a large number of cases. Reference is made to the case in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0130/1984 : 1984 (Supp) SCC 518 . In the above case the Appellants were convicted Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code . They preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court while dismissing the appeal has passed order which amounted to enhancement of sentence. This Court held that the High Court could not have enhanced the sentence before following the prescribed procedure. In paragraph 3 following has been held: 3. While dismissing the appeal of the Appellants a division Bench of the High Court observed 'that Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh who had been proved to have committed the murder of Bachan Singh in quite a ruthless manner as is apparent from the number of injuries found on the person of the deceased'. The High Court further observed that it is a fit case in which over and above the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years must be imposed on the Appellants. This additional sentence imposed by the High Court unquestionably constitutes an enhancement of sentence. The High Court did not issue notice calling upon the Appellants to show cause why the sentence imposed upon them be not enhanced before doing so. Rules of natural justice as also the prescribed procedure require that the sentence imposed on the Accused cannot be enhanced without giving notice to the Appellants and the opportunity to be heard on the proposed action. The record does not show that such a notice and opportunity were given to the Appellants and in the absence of notice the Appellants had no opportunity to contest the proposed action. Therefore, we allow this appeal limited to the question that the sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the default sentence imposed on each Appellant by the High Court is quashed and set aside confirming the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated.” 14. Therefore, we allow this appeal limited to the question that the sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the default sentence imposed on each Appellant by the High Court is quashed and set aside confirming the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated.” 14. In the case at hand, the Sessions Court enhanced the sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 304A IPC without granting the accused an opportunity to defend his case as to why the enhanced sentence should not be granted. Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C is a mandatory provision and non compliance of the said provision makes the order legally unsustainable. 15. Hence this revision petition is allowed; the impugned judgment in Crl.A.No.411/2009 of Sessions Court, Thalassery is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Sessions Court, Thalassery for fresh disposal in accordance with law after granting the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as provided under Section 377 (3) Cr.P.C . Transmit the case records to the Sessions Court, Thalassery. Both sides shall appear before the Sessions Court, Thalassery on 10.4.2025.