Maintainability of sentence-enhancement appeal under criminal procedure was rejected for lack of competence under binding precedent.

An appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise seeking enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held not competent because a controlling Bench decision had already ruled that such an appeal through counsel on the ground of inadequacy of sentence was not maintainable. Applying that binding view, the court concluded that the appellant lacked competence to maintain the appeals, and they were therefore liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable and competent.

Analysis: The appeals were founded on a request for enhancement of sentence, but the controlling Bench decision had already held that an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through counsel on the ground of inadequacy of sentence was not competent. Following that binding view, the Court held that the appellant lacked competence to maintain the appeals.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed, in favour of the respondent.

---