Arun Madan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted Under Sections. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/-each Under Section 457 & -158 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui(District Dausa)under Judgment dated 7.96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8.5.1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. The accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant’s house at about 1 O’clock in the midnight thereof , whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and respondent Sangram Singh inflicted axe blows upon them. (2). After usual investigation the police submitted challan and the respondent was charged for offence punishable Under Section 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, when the prosecution examined Babu Singh as PW, who was also not cross examined by the accused, then the respondent submitted an application and pleaded guilty therein, whereupon the prosecution evidence was closed. Accordingly the respondent was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. during which he pleaded his guilt by accepting the prosecution case. (3). Thus on the basis of guilt pleaded by the respondent and the prosecution evidence on record the trial Court held the respondent guilty of the offence charged against him and convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this revision petition against the impugned sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. (4). I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment of sentence and the material on record. (5). Shri P.C. Jain learned Counsel for the complainant contended at the outset that keeping in view the nature of injuries caused and weapon of offence used so also the manner in which the respondent committed it in the midnight by Scaling over the wall and trespassing into the house, duly armed with axe with which he inflicted several blows upon two women sleeping in their house, the trial Court committed grave error of law in awarding a lesser sentence than stipulated in the Indian Penal Code for the offences charged against the respondent. (6). On the other hand Shri M.M. Ranjan learned Counsel for the accused respondent contended that adequacy of the sentence can be challenged Under Section 377 Cr.P.C. only by the Public Prosecutor on the direction of the State Government to present appeal to the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the impugned sentence inasmuch as by virtue of bar under Sub-section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., this revision petition cannot be entertained by this Court. Lastly Shri Ranjan contended that even otherwise this Court by virtue of its jurisdiction Under Section 401, can exercise any of powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Section 386 Cr.P.C. for altering the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same, and in this view of the matter, this Court ran dismiss the revision petition for enhancement of the impugned sentence keeping in view the nature of injuries found on the injured persons and confessional statement of the accused.’ (7). Admittedly the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the impugned sentence, by invoking Section 377, Cr.P.C. Since inadequacy of impugned sentence is challenged Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., first of all I would tike to have a brief resume as to the Scope of revisional powers of this Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers upon the High Court by calling for record to exercise