N. Chitkara and E. C. Agarwala, for the petitioner.
Hence this special leave petition.
The petitioner then moved the Delhi High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Act 11 of 1974 read with Art.
Main No.
With numberright of appeal available, there was an unsuccessful revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal S.L.P. No.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st April, 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
The order of the Court was passed by GOSWAMI J. I am reluctant to leave this matter with the usual monomial order since the submission of the learned companynsel has sought to cast an unmerited doubt on the undoubted jurisdiction of the High Court in acting suo motu in criminal revision in appropriate cases.
The attempt has to be nipped in the bud.
227 of the Constitution against the companyviction, This time he was worse off as the High Court thought that the sentence awarded was inadequate and by in invoking its revisional jurisdiction issued, sou motu, a rule for enhancement of the sentence and ultimately raised the sentence to six months.
79 of 1975.
554 of 1975.
And was companyvicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under s. 61 a of the Punjab Excise Act as extended to Delhi and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment.
In this case, the petitioner was found in illegal possession of ganja weighing 7 kgs.
