ORDER
Manjusha Namjoshi, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by applicants/accused under Section 397 read with Section 401(1), Cr.PC.
2. The accused persons were charged and convicted under Section 325/34, IPC by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata, District Damoh in Criminal Case No. 1057/2000 (Parties being State v. Raghurajsingh and Ors. three) on 24-3-2005 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and in turn the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Case No. 45/05 parties being Raghurajsingh and Ors. three v. State, partly allowed the appeal maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence part, ordered that each accused shall pay fine of Rs. 7000/- and in default each one will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The judgment and order was passed on 15-9-2005.
3. The accused have preferred this revision against the order of conviction and sentence passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Without going into the merits of the case to examine the pros and cons of the case, this Court finds that the case should be sent back to the concerned Court for re-recording the sentence part of the judgment. The Trial Court was a Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, it had power under Section 29, Cr.PC to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding five thousand Rupees or both. While setting aside the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs, 500/- passed by the Trial Magistrate, the Appellate Court ordered the applicants/accused to pay a fine of Rs. 7000/- each. The simple law is the Appellate/Revisional Court cannot pass sentence beyond Original Court’s power. The jurisdiction in appeal/revision is necessarily limited in each case to the same extent as the jurisdiction from which that particular case comes. This has been further made clear in the case of Sitaram v. Emperor 12 Cr.LJ 444 and in Tirumal Raju AIR 1947 Mad. 368. The ratio of these cases is it is a fundamental principle that every Court of appeal exist for the purpose, where necessary, of doing or causing to be done, that which each Court subordinate to its Appellate Jurisdiction should have but has not done. In Jagat Bahadur v. State of M.R. AIR 1966 SC 945, it was held that the power of the Appellate Court to pass a sentence must be measured by the Power of the Court from whose judgment the appeal has been brought.
5. This Court while exercising the powers of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 cannot impose sentence of imprisonment even for one day or till rising of the Court as adding imprisonment to sentence of fine is enhancement of sentence. The State Government has not preferred any appeal against sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Since the sentence passed by the Appellate Court is illegal it cannot be allowed to stand in the revision.
6. In the result, the sentence part of the Appellate Court’s judgment is set aside and the Appellate Court shall after performing the formalities regarding re-registrating the case on old number, hear the parties on question of sentence and record a fresh sentence according to law. After recording of sentence the accused/applicants are entitled under the laws to take suitable action in the matter.
7. The parties are directed to appear in the Appellate Court on 22nd March, 2006 to participate in the further proceedings.
8. The Registry may send the copy of this order to the Additional Sessions Judge concerned for guidance after due consent from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.