Short Note : 1. The revision was against the order passed by the trial Magistrate purporting to be one under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, making both the applicants accused in the case and issuing bailable warrants against them to face the trial. A revision preferred against the order had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that no revision lay against an interlocutory order under section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Held : It is true that the challan in the present case was filed on 24-3-1969 and the cognizance of the offence was taken by them. It is therefore, clear that the present case is governed by the old Code and not by the new Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the revision petition merely on the ground that no revision lies against an interlocutory order under section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Similarly the learned Magistrate was in error in proceeding against the applicants under section 319 of the new Code. But merely quoting a wrong provision cannot vitiate the order when the Magistrate had the necessary jurisdiction to take the action under the old Code. So the impugned order can be taken to have been passed under section 190 (1) (b) or section 351 of the old Code. In the first information report (Ex. P-3) duly proved by Shiv Pratap Singh - (P. W. 3) it was alleged that Rs. 8,561.18 paise was lying with the applicant No.1 instead of depositing the amount in the Bank. On 15-4-1964, a notice was given by the Bank to the applicant No.1 to give account for the amount, but he gave no reply. Instead in legue with the Supervisor he illegally arranged a meeting of the General Body of the Society and got the non-applicant No.2 elected as President. Applicant No.1 got one charge list prepared by the applicant No.2 and took the signature of the non-applicant No.2 as the incoming President. Later on the signed revenue stamp was removed from the list and a forged receipt was prepared on which the signed revenue stamp was affixed showing the receipt of Rs. 8,561.18 p. by the non-applicant No.2. Applicant No.1 got one charge list prepared by the applicant No.2 and took the signature of the non-applicant No.2 as the incoming President. Later on the signed revenue stamp was removed from the list and a forged receipt was prepared on which the signed revenue stamp was affixed showing the receipt of Rs. 8,561.18 p. by the non-applicant No.2. It may be mentioned that applicant No. 1 and No.2 have been examined as prosecution witnesses as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively. Applicant No. 1 has admitted in his evidence that he had realised the amount of Rs. 8,561.18 p. from the members of the society and the amount was lying with him. Shiv Pratap Singh (P W. 3) has deposed that applicant No. 1 unauthorisedly kept the amount with him when he was supposed to deposit the amount in the Bank. Therefore, a notice was given to the applicant on 15-4-1964 to deposit the money but the amount was not deposited. No reply was filed. During the enquiry the witness found that applicant No. 1 had lifted the signed revenue stamp from the charge list and utilised the signed revenue stamp bearing signature of the non-applicant No.2 on the forged receipt showing payment of Rs. 8,561.18 p. to the non-applicant No.2. Therefore, the applicants are not right in contending that there is no material or evidence on record to show the complicity of the applicant in the offence. The Magistrate has the necessary power under section 190 and section 351 of the old Code to make the applicants accused in the case event at the conclusion of the trial. Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 , Saifar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962, Cal. 153, relied on. Revision dismissed.