JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J.: The public interest petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for release of persons who have been detained in connection with proceeding under Sections 107, 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed for time. 3. Bearing in mind the nature of the relief claimed in the instant petition, we are not inclined to do so. 4. It is trite law that a third party is not entitled to challenge a criminal proceeding and/or any order passed therein by way of a public interest petition. Aggrieved parties are at liberty to take recourse of appropriate appellate and/or revisional proceeding against the orders passed therein. 5. In Janata Dal Vs. & Ors. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305 theApex Court held that : “8. ……Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants”. 6. Reference may be made to Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 653 wherein the Apex Court refused to entertain a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for an order of conviction and sentence, observing thus : “7. ……….We are, therefore, satisfied that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sodhi’s contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognised political party who has a genuine interest in the future of the convicts should be entertained.” 7. In Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that neither under the provisions of the Code of 1973 nor under any statute a third party and/or stranger is permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence. 8. In Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that neither under the provisions of the Code of 1973 nor under any statute a third party and/or stranger is permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence. 8. In the pleadings of the writ petition no case has been made out as to how the aggrieved persons are handicapped in any manner to approach the ordinary process of law on their own. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is dismissed. A. Mishra, CJ.: I agree.