The appellate court cannot enhance a sentence in the absence of a state appeal, highlighting the importance of judicial notice and statutory limits on sentencing.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Miss.Shivani Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.P.Murari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.687/2012 dated 23.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 279 , 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and sentenced as under:

“Acting U/Sec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Secs.279, 304(A) of IPC and U/Sec.134(A) (B) r/w 187 of M.V. Act.

For the offence punishable u/Sec.279 of I.P.C. accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to pay fine to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.

And for the offence punishable u/Sec.304(A) of I.P.C. accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two months.

And for the offence punishable U/Sec.134(A) (B) r/w 187 of M.V. Act to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The Bail bonds and surety bond executed u/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. shall remain in force for a period of six months.”

3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.53/2017.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court entertaining the appeal of the accused, not only upheld the order of conviction, but in the appeal filed by the accused, enhanced the sentence to one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that material on record would not justify the sustenance of the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 , 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of IMV Act and sought for allowing the revision petition.

7. Alternatively, she would contend that in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that in the appeal filed by the accused, there was no scope for enhancing the sentence as the State did not challenge the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate, order of the learned Trial Magistrate can be restored by setting aside the enhancement of the sentence ordered by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments and contended that without filing an appeal or revision, State can always seek for enhancement of the sentence in the appeal filed by the accused as the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court while passing appropriate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, did consider the order dated 25.02.2019, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subash Chand v. State of Punjab in Crl.A.No.1827/2009 dated 25.02.2019 and therefore, adequate punishment can be granted in a given case even in the absence of any appeal or the revision filed by the State.

10. It is also his contention that Court cannot impose lesser punishment than the minimum punishment prescribed under the statute. Therefore, order of the First Appellate Court needs to be maintained by dismissing the revision petitio