JUDGMENT - M.M. QAZI, J.:---The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 26-9-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, converting the revision into an appeal. Applicant Hanuman was prosecuted for an offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim. On his admission, he was convicted and let off under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, reads as under : "3. Power of Court to release offenders after admonition.---When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation -- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4." 2. Non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal, who is the son of deceased Sitabai who died in an accident dated 15-5-1982 which gave rise to the present proceedings. There is no dispute that the order letting off the application on admonition was an appealable one under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, which reads under : "11. Non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal, who is the son of deceased Sitabai who died in an accident dated 15-5-1982 which gave rise to the present proceedings. There is no dispute that the order letting off the application on admonition was an appealable one under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, which reads under : "11. Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of courts in appeal and revision -- (1) x x x x x (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under section 3 or section 4 is made by any court trying the offender (other than a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences to the former Court." However, instead of filing an appeal, non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim under sections 397, 399 and 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional Sessions Judge relying on the provisions of section 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure found that when appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. In view of this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that the revision application was not tenable before him. Mr. Sirpurkar, in my view, has rightly contended that the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been misconceived by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The said provisions are reproduced as below :--- "(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (Emphasis supplied). The said provisions are reproduced as below :--- "(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (Emphasis supplied). (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly." The above provisions deal with the contingency where appeal lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that case if a revision is filed, even though appeal lies, the revision would not be tenable at the instance of the party who could have appealed. However, in the present case, we are concerned with the situation where appeal could have been preferred under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act and yet no appeal was preferred and instead only revision was filed. In view of this, the revision could not have been treated as an appeal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Mr. Kankale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal, has not been able to show as to how revision could be converted into an appeal in the present case as was done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions judge has misconceived the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to these facts I am satisfied that the impugned order converting the revision into appeal is vitiated and cannot, therefore, be sustained. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to proceed with the revision as it was filed. 4. Mr. kankale on behalf of non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal has requested that liberty should be given to him to file an appeal under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. Non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal has a right to file an appeal under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, if he deems it fit. Non-applicant No. 2 Ratipal has a right to file an appeal under section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, if he deems it fit. There is no question of granting liberty by this Court. If he files the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, to deal with it according to law. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Rule made absolute. -----