1991 PLP 1203 (MLD)

Since the revision was competent against the order of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and no revision lies against an order for the enhancement of the sentence passed under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., in exercise of the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge, so, the order of enhancement of the sentence cannot be challenged in revision. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Ss. 561-A & 439-A

Revision/application

Enhancement of sentence-- Exercise of inherent powers by High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.

After filing of appeal by the petitioners the complainant filed revision but no notice of such revision was issued and served on the petitioners

Petitioners, as a matter of fact were entitled to notice and to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced

Sentence having been enhanced without giving petitioners prior notice, High Court under S.561-A accepted the revision/application and remanded the case for fresh decision of appeal of the petitioners and revision filed by the complainant in circumstances. Muhammad Hussain Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for State. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1991. Ali Muhammad and seven others, petitioners, were tried under section 440/149/148, P.P.C. by Magistrate 1st Class, Bhalwal. On the conclusion of the trial, he convicted the petitioners under sections 148 and 440/149, P.P.C. and sentenced them to a fine of Rs.100 each, in default thereof one month R.I. each under section 148, P.P.C. and a fine of Rs.200 each, in default thereof two months' R.I. each under section 440/149, P.P.C. Feeling aggrieved thereby, they filed appeal. The complainant also filed revision for the enhancement of the sentence, which were entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who not only dismissed the appeal against conviction but also enhanced the sentence of the petitioners to six months' R.I. each under section 148, P.P.C. and two years' R.I. each under section 440/149, P.P.C. and also a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default thereof six months' R.I. each with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently, hence this revision.

2. Since the revision was competent against the order of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and no revision lies against an order for the enhancement of the sentence passed under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., in exercise of the revisional powers of the learned Sessions Judge, so, the order of enhancement of the sentence cannot be challenged in revision. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, since there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for appeal or revision against the order for the enhancement of the sentence passed by a Court of revision, therefore, I feel inclined to interfere in this matter, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel I find that after filing of appeal of the petitioner, the complainant filed revision on 21-1-1982 but no notice of this revision was issued and served on the petitioners/respondents. This is evident from last para of the judgment. I feel that the petitioners as a matter of right were entitled to notice and to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced. Since the sentence has been enhanced without giving them prior notice, so, there is no option but to accept this revision/application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and remand the case for fresh decision of the appeal of the petitioner and the revision filed by the complainant. Order accordingly. M.BA./A-1239/L Order accordingly.