@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Sudanthiram, J.@mdashThe petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and she had filed a private complaint against the respondent herein for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court had convicted the respondent/accused for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has chosen to prefer this criminal revision being not satisfied with the sentence imposed on the accused.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the trial Court had sentenced the accused maximum period of two years imprisonment, it has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. The cheque amount involved in this case is Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an old lady and if any compensation amount has been ordered that would have benefited the petitioner instead of awarding the maximum sentence of imprisonment to the respondent/accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that though the petition for enhancement of sentence is filed, the petitioner only seeks for modification of the order of the trial Court thereby enabling the petitioner to get some compensation amount from the respondent/accused.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further pointed out that after filing this criminal revision, the petitioner came to understand that the accused had also preferred an appeal against his conviction in Crl. A. No. 24/2009 and the same is also pending before the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. This Criminal Revision is connected with the Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2009, which is pending before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the accused and the revision preferred by the complainant should be heard together and disposed of.
6. u/s 397 of Cr.P.C, the learned Sessions Judge has got ample powers to consider the grievance of the parties and the correctness, legality or propriety of the sentence can be considered by the learned Judge and, therefore, the question of inadequacy of the sentence could certainly be adjudicated before the Sessions Court in the revision application.
7. This Hon''ble High Court also has held in Janani Advertising Counsel, etc v. Benett Colman & Co. Ltd., etc., reported in 2002 (2) LW (Cri.) 549, as follows:-
When the concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred on both the High Court and the Sessions Court u/s 396(1) Cr.P.C. and more particularly when Section 399(1) Cr.P.C. would provide the Sessions Judge while dealing with the revision can exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised under subsection (1) of Section 401 Cr.P.C, it would follow that if the High Court, while dealing with the revision can enhance the sentence, the Sessions Judge also can do it.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is transferred to the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry for disposal according to law. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, is directed to dispose of the Criminal Revision preferred by the complainant as well as the Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused, after hearing them together and pass orders, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
