It, therefore, enhanced the sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment in each and obtained special leave to appeal limited to the question of sentence only, the question being whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to enhance the sentence beyond the limits of the power of the trial companyrt itself The occurrence of dacoity which is the subjectmatter of the charge against the appellants, along with others, took place on the night between July 1 and 2, 1952, in the house of Ranjit Bahadur, a minor.
205 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th December, 1953, of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Second Court Chapra in Trial No.
The other accused were acquitted.
The companyvicted persons preferred an appeal to the High Court at Patna.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 4th August, 1955, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Some of them, slipping out of the house, raised a big fire which is the customary form of alarm raised against the invading crowd of dacoits.
165 of 1957.
The inmates of the house were over powered.
699 of 1953 with Criminal Revision No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
After going into the house, they broke open boxes and tampered with the iron safe, and removed articles worth twenty thousand rupees.
After midnight, 16 or 17 dacoits, fully armed with various deadly weapons, broke open the main entrance door of the house with an axe.
70 of 1953.
The appellants, along with others, were placed on their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Chapra in the district of Saran, for the offence of dacoity under s. 395, Indian Penal Code.
They, along with two others, were companyvicted under s. 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, by his Judgment and order dated December 12, 1953.
C. Mathur.,
for the appellants.
The following judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, has the power to enhance the sentence, as it has done in the instant case, beyond the limit of the maximum sentence that companyld have been imposed by the trial companyrt, on the accused persons.
October 28.
P. Varma, for the respondent.
The appeal and the rule for enhancement of sentence were heard together by a Division Bench of that Court.
The High Court, by its judgment and order dated August 4, 1955, allowed the appeal of two of the appellants and acquitted them but maintained the companyviction as against the remaining six appellants.
