Back
2012 (1) LW(Crl) 700
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. MOHAN RAM & G.M. AKBAR ALI
S. Balasubramaninan & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Labour Welfare Officer III Circle, Chennai & Others
CRL. REVISION NOS. 8,9 OF 2009 & CRL. O.P. NO. 8025 OF 2008
Decided On : 19-04-2012
B. REVISION RELATED NATURAL JUSTICE - Held, It is well settled that Natural justice is a basic tenet of common law and represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual, which is commonly a well-recognized principle ’NO ONE SHOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT ANY REMEDY’. For the purpose of attainment of this principle of natural justice, the Indian constitution has enacted a Golden rule which runs throughout the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases, where no right to appeal is afforded by the Code, it has created a remedy whereby the aggrieved party can approach the Sessions Court or the High Court to seek the exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The provisions providing for revision are contained in Sections 397-401 of the Code conferring concurrent powers for revision of a case on both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The High Court and the Sessions Court enjoy wide powers with respect to revisional jurisdiction under these provisions.
C. OBJECT OF REVISIONAL JURISDIGTION - Held, purpose is to rectify miscarriage of justice, Irregularity of procedure, Neglect of proper precaution or Apparent harsh treatment. This revisional jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised, as it cannot be invoked as a right. Revision is not a right but is only a procedural facility given to a party whereas appeal is the continuation of the proceeding. While considering the legality, propriety or the correctness of a finding or a conclusion, the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and the evidence of the case. The Court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.
D. POWER OF HIGH COURT TO ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - According to Sub-section (1) of Section 401 the High Court, while dealing with a revision, can exercise any of the powers conferred on an appellate Court, by Section 386 of the Code. According to Clause (c) of Section 386 of the Code, the appellate Court can, in an appeal for enhancement of sentence, alter the nature or the extent of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. Held, that the High Court, while dealing with a revision, can enhance the sentence - Further Held, (1). Failure of the State Government to prefer appeal before the High Court challenging inadequacy of the sentence under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. will not preclude the jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court to consider the inadequacy of the sentence on the basis of the revision filed by the complainant or the interested party challenging inadequacy of sentence. (2). The contention that the provisions of Section 377 is a bar against a revision seeking enhancement of the sentence by the Sessions Court, is absolutely unsustainable in view of the fact that appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction operates on two different fields. Where no right to appeal is afforded by the Code, it has created a remedy whereby the aggrieved party can approach the Sessions Court or the High Court to seek to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. (3). It is also contended that in view of the difference in the wording of Sections 401(1) and 399(1) of the Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge is competent to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction alone. In Section 401 (1) while dealing with the revisional powers of the High Court, it is stated that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. But in Section 399(1) providing revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, the phrase ’otherwise comes to its knowledge’ found in Section 401 (1) is absent. Therefore, the Sessions Judge is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction by otherwise comes to his knowledge and the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is limited to any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself. (4). The Court of Sessions has got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence.
Result: Matter before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for obtaining necessary orders.
G.M. AKBAR ALI, J.
1. Criminal Original Petition No.8025 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.Nos.8 and 9 of 2009 came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Criminal Revisions were filed at the instance of the accused in CC No.10403 of 1995 and Crl.O.P. was filed at the instance of the private parties.
2. During the course of hearing, a question arose before the learned Single Judge as to whether the Court of Sessions has got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence. On behalf of the revision petitioners/accused, it was argued that a revision before the Court of Sessions for enhancement of sentence at the instance of a third party was not maintainable. However, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8025 of 2008, who were the witnesses/third parties in the criminal case, had submitted that such revision for enhancement before the Court of Sessions was maintainable and relied on a decision reported in 2002 (2) LW Crl 549 (Janani Advertising Counsel rep by its Proprietor R. Ramanukam vs Benet Colmman and Co Ltd rep by its Assistant Manager C.P.Raghavan) (hereinafter referred to as Janani Advertising Case).
3. After elaborate consideration, the learned Single Judge respectfully differed with the view taken in the Janani Advertising case, which is followed in the case of R.S. Shankar vs B. Kala reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 11and directed the Registry to refer the following question before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for consideration in order to refer the same to a Division Bench to answer. The question to be answered is as follows:
“Whether the Court of Sessions have got power to entertain a revision for enhancement of sentence”
His Lordship The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has referred the matter to this Division Bench.
4. Since important question of law is involved in this, this Court requested Mr.B. Sriramulu, the learned Senior Counsel and former State Public Prosecutor to assist the Court as Amicus Curie.
5. Mr.B. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appeared for the revision petitioners and Mr.K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8025 of 2008 and Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented the State.
6. Before answering the question raised, it is relevant to point out the circumstances under which the revision as well as the criminal originall petition came to be filed by the parties.
7. The revision petitioners are the Directors and Vice President of Addison Paints and Chemicals Limited, Sembium, Chennai. They are the employers. The petitioners in the Crl.O.P.No.8025 of 2008 were the employees.
8. A private complaint was filed by the Labour Inspector on the ground that the employers have not complied with the Settlement Award passed in ID No.83 of 84 dated 31.12.1992, wherein the employers were directed to pay D.A and H.R.A for the employees for the years 1985 and 1990. The private complaint was filed under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It was taken on file in CC No.10403 of 1995.
9. After a trial the criminal court found that the employers were guilty of not implementing the award and therefore convicted them under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. A fine of Rs.1000/-was imposed to the four accused on the side of the employers. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8025 of 2008 were examined as witnesses Nos.2 and 4. The 1st and 3rd accused preferred an appeal in CA No.289 of 2003 before the Court of Sessions, Chennai. At the same time, the complainants/employees filed a criminal revision before this Court for enhancement of sentence.
10. Admittedly, when the said criminal revision was taken up in Crl.R.C.No.1442 of 2003, the learned counsel for the respondents/employers submitted that against the conviction, the respondents/employers have already preferred an appeal which was pending before the learned II Additional District Judge, Chennai. Consequently the Court observe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
