JUDGMENT AND ORDER : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. Parag J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Criminal Appeal No.7(2)/2010 affirming the judgment dated 17.05.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Sivasagar in GR Case No.681 of 2004. 3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this revision petition lies within a short campus. a) On 09.02.2004, the petitioner was selected for the post of Postal Assistant in Sivasagar Division, on the basis of the marks secured in Higher Secondary Examination for the year 1994. On 17.05.2004, she was appointed as Postal Assistant at Nazira Sub-Division. In the meantime, her Higher Secondary Examination Mark Sheet was sent to Controller of Higher Secondary Education Council at Guwahati for verification. There, it was found that the Mark Sheet of the petitioner contained false marks, which she actually did not secure. She actually secured marks which th made her to secure 5 position in the merit list, in the examination result held before her appointment. b) Narrating the aforesaid facts, Shri Bisan Singh K. Marak, the then Superintendent of Post Office, Sivasagar Division lodged an FIR before police on 29.07.2004. Police registered the case as Sivasagar P.S. Case No.289/2004. On conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 420/468 of the Indian Penal Code. c) During the trial, the prosecution side examined 7(seven) witnesses and the petitioner did not examine any defence witness. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. She was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6(six) months for each of the offences and to pay a fine of ?1,000/- for each of the offences. d) She filed an appeal before the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 5. Revision is re-working and re-writing. d) She filed an appeal before the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 5. Revision is re-working and re-writing. Revision, meaning "to see again," takes place during the entire writing process as we change words, rewrite sentences, and shift paragraphs from one location to another in our essay. Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving. 6. The distinction between the appeal and revision in the following: (1) An appeal lies to a superior court, which may not necessary be a High Court, while a revision application under the code lies only to the High Court. (2) An appeal lies only from the decrees and appealable order, but a revision application lies from any decision of a court subordinate to the High Court from which no appeal lies to the High Court or to any subordinate court. (3) A right of appeal is a substantive right conferred by the statute, while the revisional power of the High Court is purely discretionary. (4) An appeal abates if the legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record within the prescribed period. A revision application however does not abate in such case. The High Court may at any time bring the proper parties on the record of the case. (5) The grounds for an appeal and revision application are also different. An appeal lies on a question of fact or law or of fact and law, while a revision application lies only on the ground of jurisdictional error. (6) In case of appeal the memorandum of appeal must be filed before the appellate court by the aggrieved party, but filing of an application is not necessary in case of revision. (7) Ordinarily appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on question of law as well as on facts of the case whereas revisional jurisdiction involves only the question of law and this jurisdiction is never considered a rehearing. (8) An appeal is considered to be a consideration of the original proceeding whereas unlike appeal revisional is not the constitution of the original proceeding. (7) Ordinarily appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on question of law as well as on facts of the case whereas revisional jurisdiction involves only the question of law and this jurisdiction is never considered a rehearing. (8) An appeal is considered to be a consideration of the original proceeding whereas unlike appeal revisional is not the constitution of the original proceeding. (9) An appeal is a right based remedy and can be claimed as of right if there is statutory existence of it, where the revision is the purely discretionary remedy and cannot be claimed as of right. 7. This Court is of the opinion that there are no jurisdictional errors in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Sivasagar. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly upheld the said judgment. The conviction of the present petitioner is hereby upheld. 8. Regarding the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, this Court has decided to have a lenient view. The occurrence took place in the year 2004. A very long time has already elapsed. The petitioner has already undergone the rigors of the judicial process for a long duration of time. Now, she no longer deserves to be detained in custody. 9. For the ends of justice, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 10. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine for each of the offences, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment of 1(one) month for each default. On receipt of this judgment, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Sivasagar shall take necessary steps to that effect in respect of G.R. Case No.681/2004 arising out of Sivasagar P.S. Case No.289/2004. 11. The Revision Petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. Send back the LCR.