LILAMOY GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application must succeed and it is needless to go into much details. Suffice it to say that there was an order for forfeiture and penalty against the surety against that the petitioner who is an advocates clerk moved the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, who heard the matter dismissed the application of the petitioner, treating it as criminal motion. ( 2 ) MR. Ahin Auddy, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained on the face of it, because he treated it as a revisional application, although appeal under section 449 of the Cr. P. C. did lie and even his own prayer was in the form of appeal. ( 3 ) MRS. Soya Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the State has also submitted that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be supported. ( 4 ) THAT evidently is the position. Under section 449 of the Cr. P. C. appeal could lie to the Sessions Judge. Notwithstanding that, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge invoked his revisional jurisdiction. That he could not. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction, as no revision could lie before him. As the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge itself is without jurisdiction, this court will interfere and quash the order, on the ground of patent illegality. In such a case Article 227 of the Constitution of India would also be applicable. ( 5 ) THIS revisional application is therefore allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4-9-80 is quashed as being without jurisdiction. The rule is made absolute.