- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This revision has been directed against the concurrent find ing of both the courts below holding the revisionist guilty on a charge under Section 420 IPC.
(2.) THE learned IIIrd Addl. Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Meerut while convicting the accused, sentenced him to a 4 month's R. I. on the charge under Section 420 IPC and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as fine. On failure to pay the fine, one month's additional R. I. had to be undergone by the accused, vide the order dated 11. 11. 94, passed in Criminal Case No. 4744 of 1994, Ami Chand vs. Raje and others. Aggrieved against the order, the revisionist accused filed a Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1994, before the learned Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut, who by his order dated 8. 10. 96, maintained the conviction. However, he converted the sentence of 4 months' R. I. as ordered by the learned Addl. C. J. M. , by ordering that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. But the sentence of fine was en hanced to Rs. 10,000/ -. On failure to pay the fine, one month's additional R. I. was awarded. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- out of this fine was ordered to be paid to the com plainant Amichand. Aggrieved against these orders passed by the courts below, the present revision has been filed.
(3.) THIS revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that under Sec tion 386 Cr. P. C, the appellate court in an appeal from conviction can:- (h ). (i ). . . (ii ). (iii) with or without altering the findi ng, alter the nature or the extent, or the nat ure and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. (emphasis provided) The learned counsel has urged that virtually the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his ap pellate order has enhanced the sentence.;