S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) A short question has been referred for the decision of the Full Bench. The said question is as to whether this revision application should be placed for final hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court or whether it should be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the background giving rise to this question it is necessary to note a few relevant introductory facts. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2173 of 1982 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Surendranagar. He was charged with the offence under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 109 I. P. Code. After trial he was convicted by the learned trial Judge and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10 0 in default to undergo further R. I. for one year. That order was passed on 9-6-1983. As the said order was appealable under Sec. 374 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to the Court of Session the petitioner preferred and appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge to the Sessions Court of Surendranagar. she said appeal was heard by the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the same on 23-11-1983. It is thereafter that the petitioner came to this Court by way of the present criminal revision application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision application was placed for admission hearing before a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: V. V. Bedarkar and M. B. Shah JJ. ). It was admitted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on conditions mentioned in the order. Thereafter this revision application reached final hearing before another Division Bench of this Court consisting of D. H. Shukla and (one of us) A. P. Ravani JJ. The said Division Bench was prima facie of the view that the revision application as per the Appellate Side Rules 1960 should be placed for final hearing before a learned single Judge. However as there was an earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: V. V. Bedarkar (as he then was) and M B. Shah JJ ) in Criminal Revision Application Nos. However as there was an earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: V. V. Bedarkar (as he then was) and M B. Shah JJ ) in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 183 222 254 and 259 of 1983 dated 30-11-1983 taking the view that Criminal Revision Application against conviction and sentence of more than three years should be placed before a Division Bench for disposal and with which view the Division Bench taking up this Criminal Revision Application for final hearing was unable to agree the present reference has been made to a larger bench by reference order dated 26-6-1986. ( 4 ) IT was vehemently contended before us by the learned P P. appearing for the respondent. State of Gujarat that as per the relevant Appellate Side Rules this revision application has to be heard by a single Judge of this Court. Mr. A. D. Shah for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the view expressed by the Division Bench consisting of Y. Y. Bedarkar (as he then was) and M. B. Shah JJ. on 30 in Criminal Revision application Nos. 183 of 1983 and group is the correct view and does not require to be displaced. ( 5 ) IN order to resolve the aforesaid controversy between the parties it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Appellate Side Rules holding the field. In Chapter 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provision for appeals in diverse cases has been made. Section 374 (2) lays down that any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court. Section 377 (1) provides for an appeal by the State Government against sentence to the High Court in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Section 377 (1) provides for an appeal by the State Government against sentence to the High Court in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Appeals against acquittal are contemplated by Sec. 378 (1) of the Code and such appeals can be presented to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision. Section 392 lays down the procedure to be followed where Judges constituting appellate bench of the High Court are divided in opinion. Then follow Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code which provide for revisional powers of the High Court apart from the revisional powers of the Sessions Court and mode and manner of exercise of revisional power of the High Court. It therefore becomes obvious that Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down a clear cut demarcation between the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the concerned Courts including the High Court. ( 6 ) IN exercise of its powers under Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act 1915 the then Bombay High Court had framed rules named and styled as Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Appellate Side 1960 These rules with subsequent Modifications have been adopted by this court and they are holding the field today. Section 108 of the Court of India Act 1915 lays down as under:"108 (1) Each High Court may by its own rules provide as it thinks fit for the exercise by one or more Judges or by Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges of the High Court of the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. (2) The Chief Justice of each High Court shall determine what Judge in each case is to sit alone and what Judges of the Court whether with or without the Chief Justice are to constitute the several Division Courts. "this provision came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of N. S. Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Brothers AIR 1953 SC 357 . "this provision came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of N. S. Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Brothers AIR 1953 SC 357 . Mahajan J. speaking for the Supreme Court while considering the scope and ambit of Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act 1915 in juxtaposition with Art. 225 of the Constitution and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) made the following pertinent observations;"the power that is conferred on the Sigh Court by Sec. 108 Government of India Act 1915 still subsists and it has not been affected in any manner whatever either by the Government of India Act 1935 or by the Constitution of India. On the other hand it has been kept alive and reaffirmed with great vigour by these statutes. The High Courts still enjoy the same unfettered power as they enjoyed under Sec. 108 Government of India Act 1915 of making Rules and providing whether an appeal has to be heard by one Judge or more Judges or by Division Courts consisting of two or more Judges of the High Court. Further the reference in Clause 15 to Sec. 108 should be read as a reference to the corresponding provisions of the 1935 Act and the Constitution. "in view of the aforesaid settled legal-position therefore it must be held that the relevant rules forming part of the Appellate Side Rules are statutory in character and have force as such. Part I of the Appellate Side Rules deals with conduct of business. Chapter I thereof lays down jurisdiction of single Judge and benches of the High Court. Rule 2 of Chapter I provides that Save as otherwise expressly provided by any law in force or by these rules a single Judge may dispose of the following matters Para 2 of Rule 2 of Chapter I deals with criminal matters and mode and manner of disposal of such matters. In that para at item No. 8 are found Criminal Revision Applications. The said item reads as under:"applications for the exercise of the Courts revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 1898 (which will be analogous to Sec. 397 read with Sec 401 of the present Code) and the disposal of cases of which record is called for an examination of criminal returns or otherwise. The said item reads as under:"applications for the exercise of the Courts revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 1898 (which will be analogous to Sec. 397 read with Sec 401 of the present Code) and the disposal of cases of which record is called for an examination of criminal returns or otherwise. "it is therefore clear that all Criminal Revision Applications filed in the High Court as per the mandate of the aforesaid Clause 8 Para 2 of Rule 2 of Chapter I of the Appellate Side Rules have to be placed for disposal before a single Judge of the High Court. However a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. V. Bedarkar (as he then was) and M B Shah JJ. by their judgment dated 30-11-983 in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 183 of 1983 and groups (supra) took the view that when the High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction it gets clothed under Sec. 401 of the Code with the powers conferred on a Court of appeal under Secs. 386 389 390 and 391 hence it would be in the fitness of things that revision applications against the orders of conviction and sentence rendered by the lower Courts when the sentence exceeds three years should be heard by a Division Bench of the Court as appeals against such sentences are to be heard by a Division Bench. In Our view with great respect to the learned Judges who took the view as aforesaid it is impossible to held that such a course can legally be adopted. It may be that even in given contingencies revisional Court may exercise powers of an appellate Court. But all the same it would be exercising its revisional jurisdiction and it cannot treat the proceedings before it as appellate proceedings. In this connection it is also necessary to have a look at Clause (1) of Para 2 of Rule 2. It may be that even in given contingencies revisional Court may exercise powers of an appellate Court. But all the same it would be exercising its revisional jurisdiction and it cannot treat the proceedings before it as appellate proceedings. In this connection it is also necessary to have a look at Clause (1) of Para 2 of Rule 2. It deals with appeals against convictions in which only a sentence of fine or of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years with or without fine has been imposed except (i) where a notice of enhancement of sentence has been issued where the accused has been sentenced for a term of 2 years or more and (ii) where a notice has been issued to show cause why his conviction should not be altered to one of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. It is also necessary to note Clause (2) which deals with appeals or applications against orders of acquittal by a City Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate. Clause 9 deals with application under Sec. 361-A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 which will now be analogous to Sec. 482 of the Present Code. As per these clauses the learned single Judge can hear appeals against acquittal and also can hear appeals against conviction provided the sentence imposed is not exceeding three years and also in contingencies not accepted by Clause 1. The learned single Judge can also hear applications for quashing the process under Sec. 482 of the present Code even in murder cases. However when we come to criminal revision applications Clause 8 in terms provides that they have to be heard by a learned single Judge. It is difficult to appreciate how this mandatory statutory scheme reflected by the aforesaid clauses of Rule 2 Para 2 of the Appellate Side Rules can be bypassed by directing criminal revision applications to be placed for final hearing before a Division Bench in cases where the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the lower Court is more than three years. Even though such sentences are imposed by the lower Court and they are brought in challenge in revision application proceedings would remain revisional proceedings all the same and cannot be equated with appellate proceedings which have clear cut demarcations and which are contemplated only by Sec. 374 of the Code. Even though such sentences are imposed by the lower Court and they are brought in challenge in revision application proceedings would remain revisional proceedings all the same and cannot be equated with appellate proceedings which have clear cut demarcations and which are contemplated only by Sec. 374 of the Code. They con never be equated with the revisional proceedings under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code. It is also pertinent to note that in any case if the learned single Judge feels that the criminal matter placed before him for disposal of that the question pending in such matter may be referred to a Division Bench of two Judges he can do so under Clause 5 (1) of Para 2 of Rule 2 of Chapter I. The said provision can obviously take care of the situation wherein a revision application may be pending before a single Judge and from the same judgment any appeal may be filed by the State either under Sec. 377 (1) or where appeals by other accused convicted by the common judgment might be pending before the Division Bench for disposal. Consequently it is not possible to agree with the contention of Mr. Shah for the petitioner that in such cases the revision application can be treated almost like appeal and should be placed disposal before the Division Bench. If that course is adopted it will amount to rewriting of Clause 8 of Para 2 of Rule 2 of the Rules or at least its modification or amendment by judicial decision by which cannot be done and on the contrary such exercise will fly in the face of the mandate of the statutory Rules as aforesaid. We must therefore held that the decision rendered by V. V. Bedarkar (as he then was) and M. B. Shah JJ. on 30-11-1983 in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 183 of 1983 and group does not lay down good law and correct legal procedure and has therefore to be overruled. It must be held that the criminal revision applications against the orders of conviction and sentence rendered by lower Courts even though sentences imposed are for more than three years will have to be placed for disposal before learned single Judge of the Court and not before a Division Bench. It must be held that the criminal revision applications against the orders of conviction and sentence rendered by lower Courts even though sentences imposed are for more than three years will have to be placed for disposal before learned single Judge of the Court and not before a Division Bench. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with this matter we must note two submissions placed for our consideration by Mr. Shah for the petitioner in the light of Sec 401 of the Code. He submitted that under Sec. 401 (1) it has been laid down that when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Sec. 392. Placing reliance on this provision he submitted that a criminal revision application as contemplated by the Legislature can be heard by a Division Court of the High Court consisting of two Judges or more. There cannot be any dispute about the same. However the aforesaid provision also cannot be read in the reverse to mean that a criminal revision application cannot be heard by a single Judge of the High Court. No such legislative mandate is discernible from Sec. 401 (1) of the Code. There are two obvious reasons why such of inference is not possible. Firstly the Code of Criminal Procedure to govern the procedure in revision applications pending in different High Courts in the country. If as per the rules of a given High Court criminal revision applications are to be heard by a bench of two Judges the procedure laid down by Sec. 401 (1) would be applicable in cases where Judges composing the Court are equally divided in opinion. The second reason why the aforesaid provision cannot necessarily be read to mean that revision application can be heard by a bench of two Judges is that even in cases where the learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under Clause (5) of Para 2 of Rule 2 directs that a revision application should be referred for disposal to a Bench of two Judges the procedure which should be followed by such Bench hearing the referred revision application if their opinions are equally divided has to be one as contemplated by Sec. 401 (1) of the Code. Consequently merely because sub-sec. Consequently merely because sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 401 has provided for such contingencies it cannot be held that implicit in the said provision is the legislative mandate that all revision applications pending in all High Courts shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges. ( 8 ) MR. Shahs next contention was that as per sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 401 if the High Court hearing a revision application is satisfied that an appeal lies against the order but an application for revision has been preferred against such order under an erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and if the High Court finds that it is necessary in the interests of justice S9 to do the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. Mr. Shah submitted that if such an eventuality happens and if the sentence rendered by the lower Court is for more than three years at that stage the matter will have to be referred to a Division Bench as per Clause (1) of Para 2 of Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. We fail to appreciate how this situation can help the petitioner. In contingencies contemplated by sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 401 once a revision application is treated as an appeal by the High Court then obviously at that stage if the conviction rendered by the lower Court is for more than three years an appeal against such conviction and sentence once treated as such will by the very force of Clause (1) of Para 2 of Rule will have to be decided by a Division Bench and at that stage it would naturally stand transferred to the Division Bench. But so long as such contingency does not happen it can never be assumed that the pending revision applications against the conviction and sentence of more than three years can by themselves be treated as such appeals and should be heard by a Division Bench. Consequently the aforesaid contention of Mr. Shah also has no substance and has to be rejected. ( 9 ) THE present Criminal Revision Application therefore will have to be placed for final hearing before the learned single Judge taking up such matters. 10 The Reference is accordingly disposed of. Question answered. .