Short Note : 1. In a trial by the Magistrate First Class, Neemuch, the applicants Uderam, Karu and Ghisibai were convicted under sections 147 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 each on both the counts. So far as the applicants Shambhu and Radhu were concerned, they were not sentenced but were released on probation of good conduct under the probation of Offenders Act. In an appeal filed by all the appellants against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that in the light of the provisions of section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal was not competent and that since the appeal was filed even beyond the period prescribed for revision application, the legality of the order of conviction and sentence could not be examined by him. 2. Held: The only question to be decided in this revision application is as to whether the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the appeal barred by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is not correct. Section 376 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that not - withstanding anything contained in section 374 there shall be no appeal by a convicted person where a Magistrate of the first class passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding one hundred rupees. This provision is however, subject to the provisions contained in the proviso to that section. Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure further provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter 29, when more persons than one are, convicted in one trial, and an appeal able judgment or order has been passed in respect of any of such persons, all or any of the persons convicted at such trial shall have a right of appeal. From the aforesaid provisions, therefore, it is clear that the restrictions regarding the appeal ability of an order of conviction as contained in section 376 are subject to the provisions of the proviso to that section and the provisions contained if' section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, In the instant case two of the accused were dealt with under the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act. Sub-section (2) of section 11 of this Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where an order under section 3 or section 4 of that Act is made by any Court trying the offender (other than a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former Court. It bas, therefore, to be seen as to whether in the light of the provisions of sections 376 and 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 11 (2) of the Offenders Act the appeal by the applicants was or was not competent. According to clause (iii) of the proviso to S. 376 of the Code, it is only in such cases where more than one sentence of fine is passed and the total amount of fine exceeds the amount of Rs. 100 an appeal becomes 'competent Similarly, according to S. 11 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act when in a case an order of conviction is passed but instead of the accused being sentenced to any punishment, he is dealt with under section 3 or section 4, the order of convicted becomes appeal able. Lastly according to section 380 of the Code where more persons than one are convicted in one trial and an appeal-able judgment and order has been passed in respect of one accused then all or any of them convicted at such trial shall have right of appeal. In the instant case as far as the accused Uderam, Karu and Ghisibai are concerned, they have a right of appeal under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 376 of the Code, So far as the other two accused, namely Radhu and Shainbhu are concerned, they bad a right of appeal under subsection (2) of section 11 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was. therefore, in error in holding that the order of conviction so far as the accused Shambhu and Radhu are concerned and similarly so far as order of conviction and sentence in respect of the other accused are concerned is not appeal-able. Shivcharanlal v. State, AIR 1973 Raj. 167 referred to. Case remanded, Appeal allowed.