http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: NADIR KHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/06/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2205            1975 SCR  489  1975 SCC  (2) 406

ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure, (II of 1974)--s. 401, scope of

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner was convicted under s. 61(a) of  the  Punjab Excise   Act   and  sentenced  to   two   months’   rigorous imprisonment.   Revision application to the  Sessions  Judge having  failed,  he moved the High Court under s.  482,  Cr. P.C.   1973  (II  of  1974)  read  with  Art.  227  of   the Constitution.  Invoking its revisional jurisdiction suo Motu the High Court issued a rule for enhancement of the sentence and  raised  it to six months.  In application  for  special leave,  the  petitioner contended that the  High  Court,  in revision  s. 401, Cr.  P.C. had no jurisdiction or power  to enhance  the  sentence in the absence of an  appeal  by  the State under s. 337 Cr.  P.C. Dismissing the petition, HELD  :  The  High Court, as  an  effective  instrument  for administration  of criminal justice, keeps a constant  vigil and  wherever it finds that justice has suffered,  it  takes upon itself as its bounded duty to suo motuu act where there is flagrant abuse of the law.  The character of the  offence and  the  nature  of disposal of a particular  case  by  the subordinate court prompt remedial action on the part of  the High  Court for the ultimate social good of  the  community, even though the State may be slow or silent in preferring an appeal provided for under the new Code.  In a given case  of public  importance, the High Court reacts to public  concern over  the  problem  and  may act  suo  Motu  on  perusal  of newspaper   reports   disclosing   imposition   of   grossly inadequate  sentence  upon such  offenders.   This  salutary power  which existed in the old Code has not been denied  by Parliament under the new Code. [490C-F]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal S.L.P. No. 554 of 1975. From  the judgment and order dated the 21st April,  1975  of the Delhi High Court in Crl.  Misc. (Main) No. 79 of 1975. K. N. Chitkara and E. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner. The order of the Court was passed by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

GOSWAMI  J.-I  am reluctant to leave this  matter  with  the usual  monomial  order since the submission of  the  learned counsel  has  sought  to  cast an  unmerited  doubt  on  the undoubted jurisdiction of the High Court in acting suo  motu in criminal revision in appropriate cases.  The attempt  has to be nipped in the bud. In this case, the petitioner was found in illegal possession of  ganja  weighing  7  kgs.   And  was  convicted  by;  the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under s. 61(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as extended to Delhi and sentenced to two months’ rigorous  imprisonment.  With no right of appeal  available, there  was an unsuccessful revision application  before  the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.  The petitioner then moved the  Delhi High Court under s. 482 of the Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  1973 (Act 11 of 1974) read with Art. 227 of  the Constitution against the conviction, This time he was  worse off as the High Court thought that the sentence awarded  was inadequate and by in- 490 invoking  its  revisional jurisdiction issued, sou  motu,  a rule  for enhancement of the sentence and ultimately  raised the  sentence  to  six months.   Hence  this  special  leave petition. The   question  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  in   this application  is, that the High Court, in revision  under  s. 401  Cr.  P.C., has no jurisdiction or power to enhance  the sentence in the absence of an appeal against the  inadequacy of sentence under s. 377. It is well known and has been ever recognised  that  the High Court is not required to  act  in revision  merely  through  a  conduit  application  at   the instance  of  an  aggrieved party.  The High  Court,  as  an effective instrument for administration of criminal-justice, keeps  a, constant vigil and wherever it finds that  justice has  suffered, it takes upon itself as its bounded  duty  to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of the law.   The character  of  the offence and the nature of disposal  of  a particular  case  by the subordinate court  prompt  remedial action on the part of the High Court for the ultimate social good of the community, even though the State may be slow  or silent  in preferring an appeal provided for under  the  new Code.   The High Court in a given case of public  importance e.g.  is now too familiar cases of food adulteration  reacts to  public concern over the problem and may act suo motu  on perusal  of  newspaper  reports  disclosing  imposition   of grossly  inadequate  sentence  upon  such  offenders.   This position  was  true and extant in the old Code of  1898  and this salutary power has not been denied by Parliament  under the  new Code by rearrangement of the sections.  It is  true the new Code has expressly given a right to the State  under s.377  Cr.   P.C. to appeal against inadequacy  of  sentence which  was not there under the old Code.  That however  does not exclude revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to act suo  motu for enhancement of sentence in appropriate  cases. What is an appropriate case has to be left to the discretion of  the  High Court.  This Court will be slow  to  interfere with  exercise  of  such discretion under Art.  136  of  the Constitution. S.   401 expressly preserves the power of the High Court, by itself  to call for the records without the intervention  of another  agency and has kept alive the ancient  exercise  of power when something extraordinary comes to the knowledge of the  High Court.  The provisions under s. 401 read  with  s. 386(c)  (iii)  Cr.  P.C. are clearly supplemental  to  those under s. 377 whereby appeals are provided for against inade- quacy of sentence at the instance of the State Government or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Central Government, as the case may be.  There is therefore, absolutely no merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in exercising the  power  of revision, suo motu, for  enhancement  of  the sentence in this case.  The application stands H rejected. P.B.R. Petition dismissed. 491