Private complainant cannot seek sentence enhancement in revision where the statute reserves that remedy for the State

A private complainant cannot seek enhancement of sentence through revision merely on the ground of inadequacy where the statute assigns that remedy to the State Government, and in specified cases the Central Government. The revisional power to enhance sentence remains available suo motu, but only where the sentence is illegal, improper, or incorrect. On the merits, a sentence will not be interfered with in revision merely because the reasons for a lesser punishment are debatable; absent illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness, the trial court's sentence stands.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a private complainant could maintain a revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence on the ground of inadequacy of sentence; (ii) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): whether a private complainant could maintain a revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence on the ground of inadequacy of sentence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished an appeal against inadequacy of sentence from revisional jurisdiction. The provision for appeal against inadequate sentence vested that right in the State Government, and in specified cases the Central Government. Allowing a private party to bypass that scheme through revision would deprive the accused of the safeguards attached to a sentence-appeal, including the opportunity to seek acquittal or reduction of sentence. The High Court's revisional power to enhance sentence remained available suo motu where the sentence was illegal, improper, or incorrect, but not at the instance of a private party as a matter of right.

Conclusion: The revision on the ground of inadequacy of sentence was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence imposed by the trial court called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The trial court had imposed fine only after considering the circumstances, including prior custody under preventive detention. Although the reasons for imposing a lesser sentence may have been open to criticism, that did not by itself justify interference in revision. The High Court found no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the sentence sufficient to invoke revisional interference.

Conclusion: The sentence did not warrant interference in revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed both on maintainability and on merits, leaving the trial court's sentence undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A private party cannot maintain a revision petition to seek enhancement of sentence merely on the ground of inadequacy where the statute specifically provides an appeal for that purpose, and revisional interference with sentence is confined to cases of illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness.

---