JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 19.7.2005 passed , by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror Camp Bansur whereby the revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 2 against the order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Bansur convicting the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and giving them the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after following the proper procedure prescribed under the law. 2. The relevant facts are that on 13.1.1999, a typed report was submitted by one Kailash Chand at PS Bansur for the offence under Section 365 IPC. But after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioners for the offences under Section 342 and 323 IPC. The complainant in this case had received 20 injuries. The particulars of offence under Section 323 IPC were read over to the accused who denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, one formal witness Ratiram PW-1 of site plan was examined. Thereafter the accused confessed his guilt on the basis of which he was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC only and was convicted and released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The complainant filed a revision petition being No. 59/2004 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror camp Bansur which was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.7.2005 and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after following the prescribed procedure for conduct of the trial of such cases. The accused petitioners have, therefore, filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the.parties as well as learned PP for the State. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the relevant documents placed before me. 4. It may be stated at the out-set that the facts as indicated above are not in dispute. It is also true that Chapter XX comprising of Section 251 and 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the procedure of trial of summons cases by the Magistrates. It is also not disputed that the accused persons initially pleaded not guilty when the particulars of offence were read over to them. It is also true that Chapter XX comprising of Section 251 and 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the procedure of trial of summons cases by the Magistrates. It is also not disputed that the accused persons initially pleaded not guilty when the particulars of offence were read over to them. Thereafter, Ratiram PW-1, a formal witness of site plan, was examined and then application for confession of the guilt was filed by the accused persons whereupon the accused were held guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and were released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides that an appeal shall lie against the judgment of conviction and grant of probation to the court to which ordinarily the appeals lie. But in the instant case, instead of filing appeal before the competent court, a revision was filed before the learned court below which was entertained and decided by the impugned order. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror camp Bansur is, therefore, without jurisdiction and nonest. The sale deserves to be set aside and quashed on this ground alone. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by -the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror camp Bansur is quashed and set aside. The revision petition filed before the learned court below is ordered to be treated as an appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the same be sent to the learned court below for deciding it afresh as per law after treating it as an appeal.Revision allowed as above. *******