PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) I have heard Sri Balraj Trikha, learned Counsel for the applicants, at sufficient length. I wish, I could have been able to persuade myself to accept the arguments put with extreme vehemence and sincerity, but for the reasons stated hereinafter, the petition has to be dismissed. ( 2 ) THIS petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. by Ratiram and others v. State of U. P. has been filed on the following facts. In a trial under section 302/149 and allied sections, the applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment. They came up in appeal to this Court, when it was directed as under:in the result the appeal is partly allowed, conviction and sentence of life imprisonment to each of the appellants under section 302/149 IPC. are altered to that under section 325/149 IPC. , and to a sentence.)f 5 years R. I. each, rest of their conviction and sentences are (as under section 147/323/149, IPC. imposed by the Trial Court are maintained. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out their sentences as modified by this Court, according to law. (quoted from Paper book page 7) The other relevant fact which has been stated in Paragraph 11 internal page 17 of the paper book, is that the accused/petitioners challenged the order of the High Court, in the Honble Supreme Court by filing a special Leave Petition, which was refused on 15-12-1987. A further averments has been made, which may be quoted: The Honble Court made an observation while dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the. Accused petitioners to make a prayer for release on probation to the High Court concerned, according to law. ( 3 ) ON seeing this averment, I requested Sri Trikha, to produce a copy of the judgment the Honble Supreme Court. A photo-stat copy of the judgment has been passed on to this Court, which will form part of the record. The order of the Honble Sureme Court reads as under, he special leave petition is dismissed. In the order, therefore, there is no such observation of the Supreme Court as has been quoted in para 11. A photo-stat copy of the judgment has been passed on to this Court, which will form part of the record. The order of the Honble Sureme Court reads as under, he special leave petition is dismissed. In the order, therefore, there is no such observation of the Supreme Court as has been quoted in para 11. ( 4 ) SRI Trikha, then argues that in the meantime, a letter has been allegedly written by Premraj, the informant in the instant case on 12-2-1988, addressed to the applicants, who are in jail. A copy of the said letter has been filed at page 57, as Annexure-1, (without any such marking on the said Annexure-Premraj has according to the letter. expressed his desire to compound the offences. It is argued by Sri Trikha that the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958, may also be invoked in instant case. Simaltaneously, it has been prayed that the benefit of section 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may also be extended to the applicants, if compounding of the offences is not possible. ( 5 ) SRI Trikha relied upon the decisions reported in 1961 Patna 138, and 1964 Andhra Pradesh Page 4492 In all fairness he also cited a case reported in 1958 Madras Page 452. While the two former cases contained observations that even though an appeal may have been finally disposed of yet for giving some relief on the questi9n of sentence or the type of sentence which may be awardable to an accused in a given case the Madras case has taken a view contrary to the argument advanced by Sri Trikha. Though not specifically cited by Sri Trikba, the attention of the court was drawn to the other cases reported in 1928, Oudh, Page 402, AIR 1925 Calcutta 63, AIR 1927. Lahore, 1396 just as they were referred to in the Andhra Pradesh and Patna Cases. Lastly, Sri Trikha cited, AIR 1965 Supreme Court page 4447 The Honble Supreme Court in the said case held by a majority that benefit of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, may have been extendeble to the accused involved in the said case, since the Act bad come into play before the High Court had dismissed the revision. Even though the question of applicability of the said Act was not raised before the High Court but because of the beneficial provisions, the High Court was directed to look into the matter afresh. On the facts of the present case, however, the said authority of the Supreme Court has no application; ( 6 ) INCIDENTALLY, I may mention here that in some recent decisions of Honble Supreme Court, the law on the subject bas already been laid down which, answers adequately the arguments of Mr. Trikha. At once, I have three cases in mind Sankatha Singhs cases Sooraj Devi8 case9 and Naresh, code1 in which the effect of finality of judgment passed by Trial or Appellate Court hall been fully discussed. In the face of these Supreme Court decisions, the afore said ruling cited by Mr. Trikha appear to have lost relevance. In any case since the instant matter stands decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave petition, I have only to consider whether this appellation under section 482, Cr. P. C. is maintainable or not. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to my humble understanding, the High Courts previous order recording conviction and awarding sentence has merged in the Hontble Superme Court. That is to say, the directions contained in the judgment of the High Court quoted above has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that it is not only in appropriate but may be improper to try to undo what the Honble Supreme Court has already done, by taking recourse to this petition under section 482. Sri Trikha himself suggested that a speaking order be passed so that if he is advised, he may take this matter, to the Honble Supreme Court, hence this order. ( 8 ) IN view of the reasons, stated above, this petition being without any force is dismissed summarily. ( 9 ) AIR 19111 SC 736. ( 10 ) AIR 1981 SC 1385 . .