IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Right to grant remissions is governed by provisions of Section 432 Cr.P.C. which vests power with appropriate Government and not in any Court.
2. Revision at instance of complainant is maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-In these appeals, the appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 477(a), 468, 420 read with Section 109, 409 read with 109 and 468 read with 109 IPC. The trial Court, namely, the VIth Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruchirapalli, convicted the appellants under various sections, among them, for offences punishable under Section 420 and Section 420 read with 109 IPC. It awarded a maximum sentence of 5 years R.I.

2. On an appeal filed by the convicted accused, the appellate court confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court but reduced the sentence to 2-1/2 years each and further acting purportedly under various GOs. of the Government, it granted remission of the said sentence of 2-1/2 years also.

3. In a revision filed by the complainant, the High Court of Judicature at Madras considering the question of jurisdiction of the court to remit the sentence under the various G.Os. came to the conclusion that such a remission could not have been granted by the court, hence, allowed the revision. It also came to the conclusion that there is no need to remit the matter back to the lower appellate court, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court and restored the judgment of the trial court both in regard to conviction and sentence. The effect of the said judgment was that the appellants have to undergo the sentence of 5 years awarded by the trial court.

4. In these appeals, Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the High Court was in error in entertaining the revision at the instance of the complainant. He also submitted that the High Court was in error in setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court which granted the appellants benefit of remission. Alternatively he contended that neither the lower appellate court nor the High Court have gone into the merits of the case on facts, hence, they have been denied the benefit of appeal which is otherwise provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. While Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for the State strongly supported the judgment of the High Court and contended that from the purport of the order of the lower appellate court, it is clear that the court had applied its mind in regard to the facts of the case before confirming the conviction. He also submitted that it is possible that the counsel appearing for the appellants before the lower appellate court did not address any argument on merits, therefore, the complaint of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants did not get benefit of the appeal on facts is not correct. He supported the finding of the High Court on the question of grant of remission which he submitted, was without jurisdiction.

6. So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has suo motu power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard, we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir Khan vs. The State (Delhi Administration), (AIR 1976 SC 2205).

7. The second question that has come up for our consideration in this case pertains to the right of the lower appellate court to grant various remissions under various notifications issued by the State, reference to which has been made by the lower appellate court in its judgment. The right to grant remission is governed by the provisions of S