JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused for setting aside the judgment of this Court dated 20-4-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 1373/1983. ( 2. ) IN criminal case No. 90/82, the applicant and seven others, were prosecuted under sections 452, 323, 294, 506 (b), 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code. The applicant alone was convicted under section 325, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to R. I. for nine months and fine of Rs. 500/-, while the other co-accused were acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai, by judgment dated 24-8-1983. ( 3. ) THE applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1983 in the Court of Additional Judge, Khurai to the Court of Sessions Judlge, Sagar which is still pending. ( 4. ) THE State of M. P. filed criminal appeal No. 1373 of 1983 against the inadequacy of sentence passed on the appellant, under section 377 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and criminal appeal No. 1374 of 1983 against the applicant and seven others, under section 378, Criminal Procedure Code, against their acquittal of the charges under section 452, and other offences. ( 5. ) THE State appeals were heard by this Court on 19-4-1988 in presence of counsel for both parties and by a common judgment dated 20-4-1988, State appeal against acquittal was dismissed while appeal for enhancement of sentence against the applicant was allowed to the extent that the fine sentence only was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/ -. ( 6. ) AFTER the disposal of the said appeals, the appeal filed by the applicant was taken up for hearing. It is said that the applicant and the complainant made an application in that Court seeking permission to compound the offence under section 325, Indian Penal Code. Apprehending that his appeal as also the application for composition may not be dismissed as infructuous after disposal of State appeals, the applicant has applied for setting aside the judgment delivered by this Court. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing counsel for both parties as also amicus curiae Shri Surendra Singh, I am of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed in part. ( 8. ) SECTION 393, Criminal Procedure Code provides that the judgment passed by an appellate Court is final and cannot be reviewed on any ground. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing counsel for both parties as also amicus curiae Shri Surendra Singh, I am of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed in part. ( 8. ) SECTION 393, Criminal Procedure Code provides that the judgment passed by an appellate Court is final and cannot be reviewed on any ground. The proviso, however, permits the appeal Court to hear and dispose of an appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the acquittal as well as the inadequacy of the sentence in the same and to this extent the disposal of appeal against the conviction by the Appellate Court will not operate as a bar. ( 9. ) THE facts of this case however are opposite to the situation contemplated by proviso to section 393. Here the State appeals have been disposed of while the appeal against conviction and sentence, arising out of the same judgment, is till pending. Such a situation is not saved by the proviso to section 393. ( 10. ) THE question therefore arises whether the judgment rendered in the appeals filed by the State, will operate as bar to the disposal of appeal against conviction filed by the applicant which is still pending in the Court of Additional Judge. On a careful analysis of sections 374, 377 and 378, Criminal Procedure Code, I am of the opinion that the said appeal is not affected by the judgments in the State appeals. ( 11. ) IT cannot be disputed that section 374 confers a right on the accused to challenge his conviction and sentence by filing appeal. The accused has right to get his appeal disposed of in accordance with procedures prescribed under sections 382 to 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That right cannot be curtailed or taken away in any other manner. It was pointed out that on service of notice of appeal under section 377 against the sentence, on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused has a right to plead for his acquittal also under sub-section (3) of section 377. Since this right was not exercised by the applicant, while hearing of this appeal, he cannot press for acquittal in his own appeal under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code. In other words on principles of estoppel, judgment by this Court will disentitle him to press his appeal in Court below. ( 12. Since this right was not exercised by the applicant, while hearing of this appeal, he cannot press for acquittal in his own appeal under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code. In other words on principles of estoppel, judgment by this Court will disentitle him to press his appeal in Court below. ( 12. ) THE argument cannot be accepted. The judgment in State appeal clearly shows that the applicant did not exercise his option under section 377 (3) for his acquittal. The judgment in the State appeal proceeded on the adequacy or otherwise of sentence only. Since no claim for acquittal was made nor was it decided in State appeals, the judgment of this Court cannot be construed as a bar to the disposal of applicants appeal by the learned Additional Judge. ( 13. ) VIEWED from another angle, the appeal filed by the State against the sentence was restricted to examination of its adequacy and it proceeded on the ground that the conviction is final. As against this, in the appeal under section 374, the conviction itself is under challenge. Section 320 permits composition of offence and if the permission is accorded, the accused has to be acquitted that is to say his conviction will have to be set aside. If the conviction is set aside, there will be no basis for execution of the sentence passed by this Court. ( 14. ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, it is made clear that the learned Additional Judge will be free to dispose of the appeal under section 374 pending before him without being influenced by the judgment of this Court in the State appeal. He shall also be free to entertain application under section 320, Criminal Procedure Code, and if he is satisfied that the offence has been compounded, he shall record an order in accordance with section 320, Criminal Procedure Code. In case, he records an order of acquittal, he is directed to inform this Court along with a copy of that order so that this Court may in exercise of powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, pass appropriate orders in respect of the judgment dated 20-4-1988 also. ( 15. ) THE petition thus stands disposed of. I must record my appreciation and thanks to Shri Surendra Singh, Advocate, for his asistance rendered to this Court.