1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Quilon allowed an appeal against the conviction of the respondent for an offence under S.55 (g) of the Abkari Act setting aside the conviction and sentence and remanding the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. The conviction by the trial court was based upon a plea of guilty entered by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused did not plead guilty voluntarily. In that view the conviction was found liable to be set aside. This is attacked in this revision by the State.

2. Before I go into the merits of the case it may be necessary to observe that there is some confusion in the minds of the parties as to whether the learned Sessions Judge exercised appellate or revisional power in setting aside the conviction and sentence. The State has evidently treated the case as one where the Sessions Judge had invoked his revisional power in making the impugned decision. There was a contention for the State before the learned judge that the appeal should not be entertained because of the bar of S.375 of the Code of Crl, Procedure. Evidently to meet this, counsel for the accused submitted in that court that at any rate the