JUDGMENT :- (This Crl.A. Is Filed U/S.374(2) Cr.P.C Praying To Set Aside The Order Dated 1.12.09 Passed By Teh II Addl. S.J., Mysore In Crl.A.No.252/2008, Convicting The Appellant/Respondent For The Offence P/U/S. 7 Of Essential Commodities Act, Etc.) The appellant was charge sheeted alleging violation of para 16 and 20(3) of Drugs (Price Control) Order 1995, Which is punishable under Sections 7(1)(a) (II) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995, and for those offences the Appellant was tried before the 3rd Additional CJM, Mysore in C.C.No. 264/2003. By judgment dated 25.6.2008, the learned CJM acquitted the Appellant -accused of all the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the Said judgment of acquittal, the State filed appeal before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.252/2008 under Section 378(1)(a) Cr.P.C. as amended by Act 25 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge, in exercise of his appellate Power, by the judgment and order dated 1.12.2009, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine. Against the said judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant filed Revision Petition before this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which came to be numbered as Crl.R.P.No.324/2010. Registry, on scrutiny of the papers, raised objection regarding maintainability of the Revision petition against the judgment of conviction. In the light of the Said objection raised by the Registry, the learned counsel for the appellant filed A memo seeking conversion of the said Revision Petition into an appeal Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. In the light of such memo, this Court by order dated 23.3.2010, permitted the appellant to convert the Revision Petition into a Criminal appeal. Pursuant to such order, the present appeal came to be registered. In the mean while, since there was delay in filing this appeal, the Appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay. When the Application was listed for orders, the question as to whether the appeal Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, arose for consideration. It is at that stage, the learned counsel for the appellant filed memo seeking Permission to convert this appeal into a Revision Petition, presumably on the assumption that no appeal lies under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Remedy for the appellant is only by way of Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 2. It is at that stage, the learned counsel for the appellant filed memo seeking Permission to convert this appeal into a Revision Petition, presumably on the assumption that no appeal lies under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Remedy for the appellant is only by way of Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 2. In the light of the above, I have examined the provisions of Sections 374 and 378 of Cr.P.C. Prior to the amendment of Section 378 Cr.P.C., by Act 25 of 2005 State was required to file appeal before the High Court against the original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than High Court, or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision. In other words, there was no provision conferring appellate power to the court of Sessions against the judgment of acquittal passed by the inferior criminal court. By the Act 25 of 2005, Section 378 Cr.P.C. came to be amended, whereby the State is given right to prefer an appeal before the court of Sessions against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non bailable offence. It is in exercise of that power as amended by Act 25 of 2005, the State, in the case on hand, filed appeal before the Court of Sessions against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate. In exercise of the appellate power, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of acquittal and recorded conviction. Now the question is whether an appeal lies to this court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of appellate power under Section 378 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Reading of Section 374, in my opinion, do not provide for such an appeal. Section 374 of Cr.P.C. reads thus: “Section 374.(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. (2)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 passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court. (2)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 passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court. (3) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2) any person- (a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or (b) sentenced under Section 325, or (c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, May appeal to the Court of Session.” Reading of sub-section(2) of Section 374 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that an appeal lies to this Court only if the person is convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which sentence of imprisonment for more than 7 years has been passed against him. 4. Reading of Section 374 Cr.P.C. do not indicate that an appeal would lie to this Court against the order of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge in exercise of his appellate power. Remedy by way of appeal is the creation of a statute. Unless statute confers right of appeal on the aggrieved person, appeal cannot be presented to and entertained by any court. As the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure has not provided for an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of Sessions in exercise of its appellate power. On reversal of judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, no appeal can be maintained against such judgment of conviction. Therefore this appeal is not maintainable. 5. In light of the above, the Revision Petition initially filed by the appellant was maintainable. However in an anxiety, the appellant appears to have filed a memo for conversion in the light of the objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability of Revision Petition. The objection raised by the Registry about maintainability of the Revision Petition was not sustainable ln view of the fact that no appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. would lie against the judgment of the conviction passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of appellate power. The objection raised by the Registry about maintainability of the Revision Petition was not sustainable ln view of the fact that no appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. would lie against the judgment of the conviction passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of appellate power. It was only in the light of the memo filed by the appellant, the Revision Petition was permitted to be converted into an appeal. As I have fount that no appeal lies against such judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of appellate power, it is necessary to restore the Revision Petition and permit the appellant to pursue the Revision Petition filed by him. 6. In view of the above, the memo is allowed. Office is directed to register this appeal as Revision Petition in its original number registered as Criminal Revision Petition No.324/2010 and post the matter before Bench having roster. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.