Judgment :- The petitioners have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 in C.C.No.245 of 2001, dated 08-07-2002 by the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. Each of them was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, A1 shall have to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for himself and on behalf of A.1. This revision has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the said order of conviction and sentence. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Counsel for the complainant- respondent that in terms of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), an appeal is provided against the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the present revision case is not maintainable. Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. lays down as under: 'Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years (has been against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial) may appeal to the High Court.' However, Sections 375 and 376 Cr.P.C., mention the cases in which no appeal lies. Under Section 375 Cr.P.C., if the accused had pleaded guilty before the High Court or before a Court of Sessions, there would be no appeal. In terms of Section 376 Cr.P.C., appeal in petty cases is not permissible. Section 376 (b) lays down that no appeal is provided where a Court of Sessions or Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding Rs.200/- or of both such imprisonment and fine. Admittedly, the trial Court has passed sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- which takes it out of the purview of Section 376 Cr.P.C., and as such, an appeal is available to the petitioners under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The question, in these circumstances, would be whether the remedy of revision could be availed by the accused-petitioners, although they had a remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 397 Cr.P.C., there is no restriction on the powers of this Court to entertain a revision, where it finds manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 397 Cr.P.C., there is no restriction on the powers of this Court to entertain a revision, where it finds manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice. Section 397 Cr.P.C., is part of Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with 'Reference and Revision'. Section 397 lays down as under: '397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision:-- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.' A perusal of this Section would show that the High Court or the Sessions Judge is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Sections 397 to 405 Cr.P.C., lay down different powers of the High Court and form a scheme of superintendence by the High Court in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. While examining the record after summoning it under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court has to follow the procedure laid down in other provisions. Sections 397 to 405 Cr.P.C., lay down different powers of the High Court and form a scheme of superintendence by the High Court in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. While examining the record after summoning it under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court has to follow the procedure laid down in other provisions. Under Section 398 Cr.P.C., the Court can, after examining the record summoned under Section 397 Cr.P.C., direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any subordinate Magistrate to make further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. Under Section 399 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge is empowered to exercise all those powers, which can be exercised by the High Court. Under Sections 400 & 401 Cr.P.C., powers of a Sessions Judge can also be exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge. Under Section 399 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge is empowered to exercise all those powers, which can be exercised by the High Court. Under Sections 400 & 401 Cr.P.C., powers of a Sessions Judge can also be exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge. The limitations and conditions for exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 398 Cr.P.C., are prescribed in Section 401 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C., lays down that in case of any proceeding of which the record has been called for, the Court may exercise the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 Cr.P.C. In other words, after summoning the records under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court has to necessarily follow the mandate of Section 401 Cr.P.C. One of the restrictions or limitations imposed under Section 401(3) is as follows: "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.' Section 401 (4) Cr.P.C., reads as under: 'Where under this Court 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.' Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that where an appeal is provided by the Cr.P.C., a person who could have filed an appeal, cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on various judgments of this Court and the apex Court reported in Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another AIR 1997 Supreme Court 987, Thakasi Satyanarayana and another 1984 (2) (HC) APLJ 197, Konajeti Rajababu v. State of A.P. and another 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 403 (A.P.), Thupakula Ramachandra Reddy v. The State of A.P. 1986(2) (HC) 227, Ponduri Bushaiah and another v. Deputy Registrar of Co-op., Societies, Guntur and another 2001(2) ALT (Crl.) 334 (A.P.), Talla alias Cakkula Sampath v. State of A.P. 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 373 (A.P.) None of these judgments dealt with the question as to whether the remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., could be availed by the accused-petitioners, although they had a remedy of appeal in terms of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied on various judgments of this Court and the apex Court reported in Vijay Pat v. State 1972 Crl.L.J. 543 (V 78 C 134), Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another AIR 1979 Supreme Court 381 , State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4412 , C.Kunnhamad v. C.Abdul Kader 1978 Crl.L.J. NOC 19 (KERALA) . Though the judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others (9th cited supra) does not deal directly with the point, but, it has stated that the provisions contained in Sections 395 to 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power because the Court was hearing a matter after the appellate Court had decided it. The Calcutta High Court while dealing with similar issue in a judgment reported in Ram Dass Ghosh v. The State and others AIR 1958 CALCUTTA 615 (C 45 C 148) interpreted Section 439(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (old Cr.P.C.) and held that: 'I therefore hold that the petitioner had clearly a right of appeal in the present case and therefore under Section 439, Sub-section (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no proceeding by way of revision could be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed, but had not filed any" For all these reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.