JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Complainant is the Petitioner in this revision invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25-6-1986. 2. The short facts are that the opposite parties were convicted under Sections 447 and 504, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on both counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of thirty days each. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1985 and the said appeal was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on hearing the arguments of both sides reserved the judgment, but on finding that an appeal is not maintainable, instead of dismissing the appeal submitted the appeal records back to the Court of the Sessions Judge for consideration as to whether the appeal can be converted to revision. This was obviously done as the Additional Sessions Judge was not authorised to convert an appeal to revision. The Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated. 25-6-1986 converted the appeal to a revision and again transferred the same to the Second Additional Sessions Judge to be disposed of in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, rises several important questions of law requiring interpretation of different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mohanty, (i) the Additional Sessions Judge had no Jurisdiction to transfer an appeal pending before him to the Court of Session and, therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21-6-1986 must be held to be without jurisdiction; (ii) the Sessions Judge has no power to convert an appeal to a revision as there is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure and undoubtedly, the Sessions Judge has no inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code; (iii) Even assuming that the Sessions Judge could have exercised that power, he could not have done so without hearing the parties. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge having been passed without hearing the parties, the same must be held to be void; and (iv) The Sessions Judge could not transfer a revision to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Rahenoma, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, however, urges that since the impugned order of conversion has been made in the ends of Justice, the said order should not be interfered with by this Court. He further urges that though there is no specific power under the Code with the Sessions Judge to convert an appeal to a revision, yet if a revision is maintainable, then mere labelling of the same as an appeal would not take away the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to treat the same as a revision and to dispose of the same. The rival contentions require careful examination of the different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The expression "criminal procedure" means the procedure relating to crimes. The idea of a judicial proceeding is inherent in the word "crime" and, therefore, the procedure envisage "Courts". A substantive law determines the rights while a procedural law deals with the remedies. The Code of Criminal Procedure is the adjective law as it aids and protects the substantive law and it has four-fold functions, such as: (i) selecting the jurisdiction having cognisance of the matter in question; (ii) ascertaining the appropriate court for a proper decision; (iii) setting in motion the machinery of justice for the decision; and, (iv) providing for the physical force to make the Court's decision effectual. (See Element of Jurisprudence, By Holland, 13th. Edn., page 359). The word "procedure" has a wider meaning and includes the whole course of practice. From the issuing of the first process by which suitors are brought before the Court to the execution of the last process on the final judgment. The word "procedure" has been defined by Wharton to mean, the mode in which successive steps in litigation are taken and it is a part of the machinery for obtaining legal rights that is machinery as distinguished from its products. In India, there was no uniform law of criminal procedure for the entire country. There were separate Acts for the Presidency Towns and the Provinces. In India, there was no uniform law of criminal procedure for the entire country. There were separate Acts for the Presidency Towns and the Provinces. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, for the first time gave a uniform law of procedure for the whole of India and it was replaced by Act V of 1898 which was then superseded by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). In the Code of 1973, which is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission, three basic considerations have weighed with the Government; (a) an accused should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice; (b) every effort should be made to avoid delay in investigation and trial which is harmful not only to the individual involved but also to society; and, (c) the procedure should not be complicated and should to the utmost extent possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community. The Indian Penal Code contains the substantial criminal law while the Code of Criminal Procedure supplements it by rules of procedure. The Code thus provides a machinery for the punishment of offences against the substantive criminal law and to ensure to the accused a fair trial for the ascertainment of his guilt or innocence. The term "Code" means a collection or system of laws. It is complete in containing all the laws in force governing the subject which it treats; it is logical, scientific and arranged conveniently and it is clear and concise to avoid prolixity and ambiguity. u/s 4 of the Code, all offences under the Indian Penal Code are required to be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. Section 6 deals with the power of the State Government to notify and declare regarding establishment of a Court of Session. Section 9(3) authorises the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise the jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Thus, the powers and the parameters of a Court of Session or the Additional Sessions Judge are circumscribed by different provisions, in the Code itself. With this background, I shall examine the several contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner. 5. Chapter-XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with procedure regarding appeals. Thus, the powers and the parameters of a Court of Session or the Additional Sessions Judge are circumscribed by different provisions, in the Code itself. With this background, I shall examine the several contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner. 5. Chapter-XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with procedure regarding appeals. Section 381 provides the procedure as to how an appeal to a Court of Session will be heard. Sub-section (2) of Section 381 empowers an Additional Sessions Judge, an Assistant Sessions Judge or a Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear such appeals as the Sessions Judge of the Division may, by general or special order make over to him or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to hear. Thus, the Sessions Judge in the present case was fully empowered to transfer the pending appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge and the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in question. Section 386 deals with the powers of the appellate court. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising an Additional Sessions Judge to remit back an appeal which has been made over to him by the Sessions Judge and in this view of the matter, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the Additional Sessions Judge committed a gross error in sending back the file to the Sessions Judge by order dated 21-6-1986, when he found that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 376 of the Code. 6. Coming to the question whether a Sessions Judge has the power to convert an appeal to a revision, I find that there is no such express power under the Code. But Section 397 of the Code empowers a Sessions Judge to exercise power of revision in exercise of which the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the records of any proceeding before any criminal court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the Code itself confers a power of revision in the Court of Session u/s 397 of the Code. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the Code itself confers a power of revision in the Court of Session u/s 397 of the Code. If an accused being convicted of an offence is sentenced to a non-appealable sentence and the accused by mistake invokes the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge against the same but labels the document as an appeal, then the Sessions Judge, in my opinion, can treat the same as a revision and exercise his revisional jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 397 of the Code. Treating an appeal as a revision, the Sessions Judge does not exercise a jurisdiction not vested in him under the Code, but on the other hand, he deals with the matter in accordance with the jurisdiction conferred on him under the Code and that too in the ends of justice. In such a case, it cannot be said, as contended by Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner, that the Sessions Judge exercises a jurisdiction not conferred on him under the Code. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that in a case where no appeal is maintainable, but an accused prefers an appeal before the Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge can treat the same as revision and dispose of the same in accordance with the powers of revision of a Sessions Judge. While treating an appeal as a revision, the learned Sessions Judge should obviously hear the parties concerned and since in the present case, the Sessions Judge admittedly did not hear the Petitioner-complainant, Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner was fully justified ill complaining against the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Coming to the question whether a Sessions Judge can transfer a revision to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner contends that there is no provision in case of revision corresponding to Section 381(2) dealing with "appeals" and, therefore, a revision cannot be transferred by a Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge. Chapter-XXX of the Code deals with "reference and revision," Section 397 occurring in the said Chapter deals with the Sessions Judge's power of revision. Chapter-XXX of the Code deals with "reference and revision," Section 397 occurring in the said Chapter deals with the Sessions Judge's power of revision. Section 400 which occurs in the said Chapter also provides that an Additional Sessions Judge shall have and may exercise all the powers of a Sessions Judge under this Chapter in respect of any case which may be transferred to him by or under any general or special order of the Sessions Judge. This provision, therefore, clearly stipulates that an Additional Sessions Judge can exercise the power of revision of a Sessions Judge conferred u/s 397 and also contemplates transfer of a Revision to an Additional Sessions Judge by the Court of Session. In my view, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner that a Sessions Judge cannot transfer a revision to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. 8. In my ultimate conclusion, therefore though the Additional Sessions Judge was not authorised to remit the pending appeal before him to the Court of Session by order dated 21-6-1986, yet there is no illegality on the part of the learned Sessions Judge in treating the appeal as a revision and remitting the same to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The only lacuna, therefore, lies with the Sessions Judge in getting the records of the case on being remitted by the Additional Sessions Judge. Admittedly, the opposite parties have been convicted of an offence and have been awarded a non-appealable sentence. The accused persons did invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge though nomenclatured the petition as an appeal. Treating of an appeal memo in such circumstances as a revision is in furtherance of the interests of justice since both the Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge possess revisional jurisdiction. In such a case, this Court should not interfere with the order in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction since inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only in furtherance of justice and not in derogation of the same. 9. In the result, therefore, I would sustain the order of the learned Sessions Judge and hold that this revision is devoid of merits. The Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed