BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17. 04. 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New delhi, whereby the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction order dated 5/4/2005 passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, was dismissed. The learned Metropolitan magistrate had, by the said order dated 5/4/2005, convicted the petitioner under Section 53/116 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). By a separate order passed on 5/4/2005 itself, the learned metropolitan Magistrate after taking a lenient view, sentenced the petitioner to the minimum period of six months simple imprisonment for the said offence and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and prescribed a sentence of one months simple imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case against the petitioner is that the Deputy commissioner of Police, South West District passed an externment order Ex. PW2/a, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove herself beyond the limits of national Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of one year with effect from 30/1/2004 The petitioner was found present at Jhuggi No. E-265, E Block, J. J. Colony, Inder Puri , New Delhi in violation of the said externment order, on 25/4/2004. ( 3 ) AS indicated in the order passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate, PW1 Ct. Niranjan and PW2 Jaipal Singh were on patrolling duty and they apprehended the petitioner from the aforesaid place. Lady Ct. Manju Lata carried out the personal search of the petitioner. The learned Metropolitan magistrate noted in his order that PW1 and PW2 have categorically deposed that on 25/4/2004, the said witnesses found the petitioner at the aforesaid area. It was also indicated that none of the witnesses of the prosecution have been cross-examined on behalf of the defence and, therefore, their testimony had to be taken at face value as it remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. It is also recorded in paragraph 7 of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the counsel appearing for the accused, during the course of arguments, admitted that the accused was in Delhi on 25/4/2004 in violation of the aforesaid orders of externment. It is also recorded in paragraph 7 of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the counsel appearing for the accused, during the course of arguments, admitted that the accused was in Delhi on 25/4/2004 in violation of the aforesaid orders of externment. It was, however, pointed out by the learned counsel before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused was arrested not from the said jhuggi but from the hospital where the accused had gone to see her husband, who was admitted there. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, in considering the appeal filed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was also of the opinion that the fact that there was an admission that the petitioner came to delhi to see her husband in Delhi itself proves the case of the prosecution that the appellant was present in Delhi on 25/4/2004 in violation of the externment order and, therefore, the Appellate Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was upheld. ( 5 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties. I have particularly examined the material on record because a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. The entire record indicates that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and sentenced. There is no reason for me to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. Accordingly, this revision petition as well as the pending application for suspension of sentence are dismissed.