IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1146 of 2007 RAM AKWAL SINGH & ORS Versus SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ANR ----------- 3 24.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have been convicted under section 323 IPC and have been given benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Against the said conviction, the petitioners have preferred the present revision application before this Court. It has been submitted that the present revision application is maintainable in view of sections 360, 376 and 401(5) Cr.P.C. Section 360 Cr.P.C. starts with the heading Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition. Then section 376 Cr.P.C. provides no appeal in petty cases. Section 401 speaks about the High Court’s powers of revision. Sub-section (3) of section 374 Cr.P.C. provides for appeal to the court of session from conviction by Assistant Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Magistrate and all other Magistrates irrespective of the class. According to which an appeal from the Magistrate will lie to that Sessions Judge who has territorial 2 jurisdiction over the particular case. Admittedly in the present case, petitioners have been convicted under section 323 IPC but no sentence has been awarded to them rather they have been provided the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The conviction without sentence is conviction for the purpose of appeal. Such being the position in law, this Cr. Revision is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners may, if so advised, prefer appeal before the Sessions Judge. (M.Saran,J) AI