GOVIND RAMJI JADHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 07-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVIND RAMJI JADHAV 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MARCH 7, 1990 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
J:. · 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 377, 386 and 397-
"r.· 
Enhancement of sentence-Jurisdiction of High Court-Requirement 
of issue of notice and affording opportunity to accused. 
· 
The appellant and two others were convicted for life and 3 years 
rigorous imprisonment or fme of Rs.2500 each for offences under Section 
302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, 
respectively. On appeal by the accused the High Court set aside the 
conviction of all of them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 
and also the conviction of two of them under Section 201 read with 
Section 34 IPC. In respect of the appellant the High Court not only 
confirmed the conviction under Section 201, but also enhanced the sen-
tence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. While doing so, the High Court 
did not issue notice to the appellant; nor did it afford an opportunity of 
showing canse against the proposed enhancement of sentence. Before 
the High Conrt, the State did not prefer an appeal for an enhancement 
of sentence under Section 377 Cr .P. C. on the ground of inadequacy. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: I.I. 'Let punishment fit the crime' is 'lne of the main 
objects of the sentencing policy. To achieve this object, the Code of F 
Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to enhance the sentence 
in appropriate cases while the sentence awarded by the Subordinate 
Courts is grossly inadequate or unconscionably lenient or 'flea-bite' or 
is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The High Court 
enjoins the power of enhancing the sentence either in exercise of its revi-
sional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 40 l or in its 
G 
appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of the 
Criminal Procednre Code subject to the provisos (1) and (2) to Section 
386 of the Code. It is permissible for the High Court while exercising its 
revisional jnrisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC to 
exercise the power of .a Court of Appeal under Section 386( c) for 
enhancement of sentence. [8S7G-H; 8S8A] 
-
H 
855 
A 
B 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 1 S.C.R. 
1.2. The High Court, notwithstanding its powers under the 
appellate jurisdiction in an appeal preferred under Section 377 of the 
Code, have powers to act suo motu to enhance the sentence in appro-
priate cases while exercising its revisional jurisdiction even in the 
absence of an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence as provided 
under Section 377. [858F-G I 
Bachan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab, (1980] 1 SCR 645; Nadir 
Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration), [1975] 2 SCC 406 and Ling-
ala Vijay Kumar and Others v. The Public Prosecutor, [1978] 4 SCC 
196, relied on. 
C 
2. The High Court both in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction 
under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr .P. C. and its appellate 
jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of Cr.P.C. in 
matters of enhancement of sentence should give the accused a reasonable 
opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as contemp-
_,>--
lated under the first proviso to Section 386 as well under sub-section (3) 
D of Section 377 of tbe Code. The rules of natural justice as also the 
prescribed procedure require issuing notice to the appellant and afford-
ing an opportunity to be heard on the proposed action for enhancement 
of sentence. [861A-Bl 
Surjit Singh and Others, v. State of Punjab, (1984] Supp. SCC 518 
E 
and Sahab Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, JT 1990 1 SC 303, 
relied on. 
3. In the instant case, the High Court has enhanced the sentence 
unmindful of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
and also the rules of natural justice and by over-stepping its jurisdiction 
p 
adopted a leeway in enhancing the sentence from three years to seven 
years for the conviction under Section 201 IPC which exercise of powers 
in violation.ofthe prescribed procedure, is impermissible. [861C-D] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 197 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.1989/18.9.1989 of the 
Bombay High Court in Cr!. A. No. 284 of 1987. 
Mr. Satish Vig for the Appellant. 
Mr. A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
r , 
, 
/ 
.¥ 
..i. 
------: 
.. 
.___,. 
'r 
G.R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.