JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The crux of the issue arises at present is whether against the order of rejecting petition filed for discharge by the accused and framing of charge by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Court), a revision petition is maintainable or an appeal under section 13 of the OPID Act, 2011 ? 2. The petitioner Dhirendra Kumar Khandelwal has challenged the impugned orders dated 05.04.2016 and 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Act), Cuttack in C.T. No. 15 of 2015. By virtue of the order dated 05.04.2016, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and vide order dated 06.04.2016 on perusal of the case record and the documents, being satisfied that there appears to be grounds for presuming the commission of offences under sections 467/468/471/406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter "OPID Act, 2011") is made out, framed the charges. 3. The office has pointed out that against the impugned orders under Annexure-2 dated 05.04.2016 and 06.04.2016, appeal is maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in view of section 15 of the OPID Act, 2011 which deals with the procedure and powers of the Designated Court regarding the offences, it has been laid down that while trying the accused persons, the Designated Court shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate and since against the order of framing charge, revision petition is maintainable, therefore, this revision petition is also maintainable and as such, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter may be ignored. 5. Section 13 of the OPID Act, 2011 reads as follows :- "13. Appeal-Any person including the Competent Authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Designated Court, may prefer an appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of the order". 6. 5. Section 13 of the OPID Act, 2011 reads as follows :- "13. Appeal-Any person including the Competent Authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Designated Court, may prefer an appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of the order". 6. From the bare reading of section 13 of the 2011 Act, it is very clear that if the Designated Court passes any order then the only remedy available to the person aggrieved including the competent authority is to prefer an appeal to this Court and the appeal is to be preferred within thirty days from the date of the order. 7. In view of section 4 of Cr.P.C., it is very clear that the offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions enacted for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. In absence of any such special enactment, the general provisions as mentioned in the Cr.P.C. shall be followed. 8. Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the provisions under Cr.P.C., in absence of any specific provision to the contrary, shall not affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. In view of sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C., it is very clear that if special procedure has been laid down relating to the investigation, inquiry or trial of the offence in any special Act then such procedure has to be followed otherwise the general procedure which has been laid down under Cr.P.C. would be followed. 9. Since the OPID Act, 2011 is a special enactment and procedure regarding appeal has been laid down under section 13 which indicates that any order passed by the Designated Court is an appealable order which is to be preferred to the High Court, no other petition like revision or under section 482 Cr.P.C. shall be maintained. 10. Therefore, I am of the view that Office is right in pointing out that the case might be registered as criminal appeal. 10. Therefore, I am of the view that Office is right in pointing out that the case might be registered as criminal appeal. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file a misc. case for conversion of Criminal Revision to Criminal Appeal within a week. 12. Time is allowed. Final Result : Allowed