JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J. :— I am reluctant to leave this matter with the usual monomial order since the submission of the learned counsel has sought to cast an unmerited doubt on the undoubted jurisdiction of the High Court in acting suo motu in criminal revision in appropriate cases. The attempt has to be nipped in the bud.

2. In this case, the petitioner was found in illegal possession of ganja weighing 7 kgs. and was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under S. 61 (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as extended to Delhi and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment. With no right of appeal available, there was an unsuccessful revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner then moved the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974) read with Art. 227 of the Constitution against the conviction. This time he was worse off as the High Court thought that the sentence awarded was inadequate and by invoking its revisional jurisdiction issued, suo motu, a rule for enhancement of the sentence and ultimately raised the sentence to six months. Hence this special leave petition.

3. The question raised by lea