A complainant does not have the right to file a revision petition for enhancement of sentence or against an order of acquittal. Only the State Government or the Central Government has the right to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377, Cr.P.C. A complainant has a right to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C., but only with the leave of the High Court. If the complainant fails to obtain leave, he cannot file a revision petition.

NATARAJAN, J.

Criminal R.C. Nos. 31 and 32 of 1979 arise out of two references made by the Sessions Judge of Salem, under Section 395(2), Cr.P.C. While hearing Cri.R.C. No. 31 of 1979, Singaravelu, J. doubted the correctness of the ratio laid down in Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society v. V. Chandran (1982 Mad LW (Cri) 20) and Ramu Ammal v. E. Venkatachalam (Cri.R.C. No. 26/1980 of this Court - Order dated November 17, 1981), and therefore deemed it expedient to refer the matter to a Division Bench and that is how Crl.R.C. No. 31 of 1979 came to be posted before us. Since Crl.R.C. No. 32 of 1979 is an allied revision, it has also come to be posted before us for disposal.

2. Crl.R.C. No. 31 of 1979 relates to a private complaint taken on file as C.C. No. 455 of 1978 by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Namakkal, for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. After trial, the Magistrate acquitted the accused. The complainant preferred a revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399, Cr.P.C. and prayed for the setting aside of the order of acquittal. The accused and the Public Prosecutor questioned the maintainability of the revision petition before the Sessions Judge. The complainant however contended that the powers of revision of the Sessions Judge under Section 399 were co-extensive with those of the High Court under S. 401, Cr.P.C. and as such, the revision was maintainable. Without rendering a finding on the debate, the Sessions Judge has made a reference to the High Court on the ground that the controversy is not covered by any reported decision.

3. Crl.R.C. 32 of 1979 relates to C.C. No. 1502 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Omalur. The case was taken on file on a charge-sheet filed by the police against seven persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 352, I.P.C. The Magistrate, after trial, acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, P.W. 1, the injured person, preferred a revision to the Sessions Judge. There also, the question arose whether a revision would lie to the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has referred the matter to the High Court for clarification.

4. When Crl.R.C. No. 31 of 1979 was taken up by Singaravelu, J., the decisions of M. A. Sathar Sayeed, J., in Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society v. V. Chandran, (1982 Mad LW (Cri) 20) and Ramu Ammal v. E. Venkata-chalam, (Crl.R.C. No. 26/1980 of this Court Order dated November 17, 1981), were cited in justification of the petitioner filing a revision to the Sessions Judge against the acquittal of the accused. In the first case cited, the District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Ramanathapuram, which was the complainant, filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Madurai, praying for enhancement of sentence to the accused. The Sessions Judge refused to entertain the revision stating that only the High Court has jurisdiction to enhance the sentence. The Society then filed Cri.R.C. Nos. 684 and 685 of 1977. M. A. Sathar Sayeed, J., held that since the State has no part to play in the proceedings, no appeal would lie under Section 377, Cr.P.C., for enhancement of the sentence and as such, the only remedy open to the complainant was to move the Sessions Court, and not the High Court, for enhancement of the sentence.

5. In the second case cited, the Sessions Judge entertained a revision filed by a complainant against an order of acquittal and this was challenged by the accused before this Court. M. A. Sathar Sayeed, J., applied the ratio laid down in Ramnad District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society v. V. Chandran (1982 Mad LW (Cri) 20) and held that the Sessions Judge had the requisite power to entertain the revision against acquittal and dismissed the revision.

6. Singaravelu, J., is of the view that in the light of the express terms contained in Section 377, Cr.P.C., the right to file an appeal has been conferred excl