JUDGMENT 1. - The State has come up by way of this appeal against the impugned order dated 28.6.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chabra District Baran in Criminal Case No. 553/93 whereby, the said trial court while sustaining the conviction of the accused-respondent for commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short "the Act of 1954", extended the benefit of probation to the accused respondent under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 for short "the Act of 1958" and directed the release of the accused-respondent on interim-bail on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 3000/- and personal bond in the like amount with the other stipulations. I am informed by Mr. B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the respondent that the direction of the trial Court has already been complied with by the accused. Against the judgment and order dated 28.6.1995 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM Chabra, Baran in Cr. Case No. 553/93 whereby he convicted the respondent under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act but given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and has released the accused. 2. However, as regards the maintainability of the appeal, I am of the view that in view of Section 11(2) of the Act of 1958, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, when 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 from the sentences of the former court" the State should not have preferred the appeal directly before this Court as the appeal lies against the conviction even though under the Act of 1958 only to the Sessions Court. Learned Public Prosecutor has requested that this appeal be transferred to 10 the Court of Sessions. But, in my view, there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of appeal to the Sessions Court. If the State is so advised, it may prefer an appeal afresh before the Sessions Court against the impugned-order dated 28.6.1995 of the trial Court whereby the said Court extended the benefit of probation to the accused. If the State is so advised, it may prefer an appeal afresh before the Sessions Court against the impugned-order dated 28.6.1995 of the trial Court whereby the said Court extended the benefit of probation to the accused. In case, the State prefers an appeal against the said impugned order to the Court of Sessions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order then, the time consumed by the State in preferring the present appeal to this Court would not come in the way of the State. 3. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of. The summoned record be sent back forthwith.Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******