JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J,—In this petition a question of law whether the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure will apply or the provisions of new Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to the facts of this case, has been referred by the Honble the Chief Justice to a larger bench. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the police had put up a challan in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohru alleging offences under sections 353, 332, 504 and 506, I. P. C. against the petitioner and another person, on 1-12-1973. The learned Magistrate by his order, dated 2nd August, 1974 held that no case for charge was made against the other accused and an offence under section 323,1. P C. was made out against the present petitioner. The State filed a revision petition under section 397/399, Cr. P. C. against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Simla against the present petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the State that offences under sections 353, 332, 5(4 and 506,1. P. C. were made out against the petitioner and that the trial Magistrate had wrongly discharged the accused of the said offences, The learned Sessions Judges by an order, dated 16th August, 1976 allowed the revision petition and remitted the case to the trial Magistrate for disposal, according to law. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner ha9 filed this petition in this Court, 4. The present petition has been filed under sections 482 and 397 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and section 435 and 561-A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be pertinent to point out that the revision petition in the court of the learned Sessions Judge was filed under sections 397 and 399 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. No objection was taken before the learned Sessions Judge that the petition had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Code. The only objection which was taken was that the order being in the nature of an interlocutory order, no revision petition was competent. No objection was taken before the learned Sessions Judge that the petition had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Code. The only objection which was taken was that the order being in the nature of an interlocutory order, no revision petition was competent. It is for the first time that the objection has been taken in this Court that the provisions of the new Code are not attracted in the case. 5. Section 484 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the repeal and savings of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, may be reproduced as under :— "484. Repeal and savings.—(I) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898), is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal,— (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the old Code)5 as if this Code had not come into force : Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code ; (b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local jurisdiction defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed, respectively, to have been published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code; (c) any sanction accorded or consent given under the old Code in pursuance of whish no proceeding was commenced under that Code, shall be deemed to have teen accorded or given under the corresponding provisions of this Code and proceedings may be commenced under this Code in pursuance of such sanction or consent; (d) the provisions of the old Code shall continue to apply in relation to every prosecution against a Ruler within the meaning of Article 363 of the Constitution. (3) Where the period prescribed for an application or other proceedings under the old Code had expired on or before the commencement of this Code, nothing in this Code shall be construed as enabling any such application to be made or proceeding to be commenced under this Code by reason only of the fact that a longer^ period therefor is prescribed by this Code or provisions are made in this Code for the extension of time." 6. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have cited numerous authorities for and against the proposition whether under the aforesaid repeal and savings section the provisions of old Code or new Code would be applicable. The Honble Mr. Justice C. R. Thakur, J. of this Court in a case Buta Rom Moti Ram v. The State, 1977 Criminal Law Journal 630, has held that subsection (2) of section 484 of the new Code says that ii there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of old Code and as such according to the learned Judge if any appeal revision, etc. is to be filed after the commencement of the new Code arising against any proceedings which had been filed in the trial Court before coming into force of the new Code then that appeal, revision, etc. is to be governed under the old Code. The learned Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Firm Chironjilal Ramjihhai & Co. v. Chunarmal Moti Ram & Co., 1976 Criminal Law Journal 437. On the contrary reliance has been mainly placed on a Full Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in case Hiralal Nansa Bhavsar and another v. The State of Gujarat, 1976 Criminal Law Journal 84, and a judgment of the Supreme Court in case P. Philip v. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and another, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1185. So far as the decision of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court is concerned it was a case in which certain accused persons were convicted on the basis of a challan, cognizance whereof was taken by the trial court prior to the coming into force of the new Code. So far as the decision of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court is concerned it was a case in which certain accused persons were convicted on the basis of a challan, cognizance whereof was taken by the trial court prior to the coming into force of the new Code. In that case it was held that in enacting sub-section (2) (a) of section 484 of new Code the Parliament intended that the pending proceedings be disposed of or continued or held or made according to the procedure under the old Code. On the basis of an illustration given, while deciding this case, it was observed by the Full Bench that in case the provision was not interpreted in the aforesaid manner it would lead to inconsistency. As such the said case was dealing with the right of an appeal which is a substantive right. The Supreme Court judgment, referred to above, however, directly deals with the question of a revision petition. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed as under :— "It will be seen that the word "application" in the saving provision contained in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484 immediately follows the term appeal". It, therefore, takes some colour from the collocation of words in which it occurs. It is synonymous with the terms "petition" which means a written statement of material facts, requesting the court to grant the relief or remedy based on those facts. It is a peculiar mode of seeking redress recognised by law. Thus considered, there can be no doubt that the word "application" as used in clause (a) of section 484 of the Code / of 1973 will take in a revision application made under section 435 of the old Code. Such a revision application does not cease to be an "application" within the purview of the aforesaid clause (a) merely because in the event of the application being allowed, the Sessions Judge was required to make a reference to the High Court under section 438. Whether such an application is granted or dismissed by the Sessions Judge, he finally disposes of the matter so far as his Court is concerned. Whether such an application is granted or dismissed by the Sessions Judge, he finally disposes of the matter so far as his Court is concerned. May be that a purely interlocutory application in a pending action, which by itself is not an independent mode of seeking redress recognised by law, is not covered by the word application as used in the aforesaid clause (a). But it is not necessary to express any final opinion on that point because a revision application of the kind before us is riot by any reckoning, such an interlocutory application." 7. Our attention has been also drawn to certain reported judgments in which the view has been taken that a right of revision is not, as in the case of appeal, a vested right and is also not a continuation of proceeding but is only an independent proceeding and it cannot be treated on par with appeal and hence what holds good for an appeal cannot hold good for a revision. In the face of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court we are not inclined to follow this view. It appears that attention of the court was not drawn to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 8. So far as the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the learned trial Magistrate was an interlocutory order, is concerned, we are of the view that since the petitioner was discharged of offences under sections 353, 332, 504 and 506, I. P. C. by the trial Magistrate, such an order of discharge is not an interlocutory order simpliciter. Such a view has already been taken by this Court on following the observations of the Supreme Court. In view of the fact that we are taking the view that the revision petition in this case is governed by the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, this contention loses its importance in the instant case. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that in those cases in which a court has taken cognizance of a case prior to the coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the proceedings have to be disposed of, continued and finally decided in accordance with the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the reference made, is answered as above. 10. As such, the reference made, is answered as above. 10. On account of the aforesaid decision taken by us, the case has to be sent back to the learned Sessions Judge so that after considering the order of the learned Magistrate he may recommend the case to this court for final decision, as provided under section 438 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is quite obvious. He has already held in the order passed by him that the order of the trial Magistrate is to be set aside. In such a situation if this formality is complied with, the final disposal of the case would be delayed. As such, it is just and proper that we consider the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as recommendation and pass a final order in terms of section 438 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. We have thoroughly perused the order and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and we agree with the view taken by him. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rohru does not appear to be correct and cannot be sustained. For the above reason the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, is set aside and the case is sent back to him for disposal of the same in terms of the order passed by this Court. The case is disposed of accordingly.