The judgment of the High Court in revision is final and cannot be modified or altered, even in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. for a review and modification of sentence passed on the two petitioners by this Court in Criminal revision No. 165 of 1963 by the judgment dated 6th September, 1963.

( 2 ) THE two petitioners were tried for an offence under Section 380 and 454 I. P. C. for housebreaking and theft of some ornaments and cash from the house of a prostitute named Adiguni (P. W. 1) in Ganjam district. The trying Magistrate, by his judgment dated 31st March 1962 sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one-year each, on each count, and also directed that the sentences should run consecutively. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of berhampur by his judgment dated 22nd March 1963, maintained the conviction and sentence but directed that the sentences should run concurrently. The petitioners then preferred a Criminal Revision (Cr. Revision No. 265 of 1963)before this Court, which disposed of it on merits, by its judgment dated 6th september 1963. The High Court maintained the conviction of the two petitioners but further reduced the sentences to six months each (the sentences to run concurrently ). This Court further observed that though the petitioners were young men aged about 20 years they committed the offence with deliberation for a dishonest purpose and that therefore the case should not be dealt with leniently, though in view of their youth the sentence might be reduced.

( 3 ) UNFORTUNATELY the attention of the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal and of this Court while hearing the aforesaid Criminal Revision, was not invited to the fact that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 had been extended to the district of Ganjam with effect from 1st December 1962--by the Government of orissa, Home Department Notification No. 27941--Jails dated 30th November 1962. Counsel for the petitioners also did rot urge before these two Courts that section 6 of the said Act should be applied.

( 4 ) AFTER the disposal of the Criminal Revision by this Court counsel for the petitioners became aware of the fact that the said Act had already been brought into force in the District of Ganjam and hence applied to this Court under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. with request to modify the sentence and deal with the two petitioners in accordance with provisions of Section 6 of that Act.

( 5 ) TWO important questions arise for consideration now. Firstly, as the said Act was not brought into force in Ganjam district on the. date on which the offence was committed, namely 28th October 1959 (though it had come into force prior to the date of delivery of the Judgment by the appellate Court, viz. , the Sessions judge, viz. , 22nd March 1963), will it be proper either for the appellate Court or for the Court of Revision (High Court) to apply the provisions of that Act thereby giving limited retrospective effect to the Act. Secondly, assuming that such retrospective effect should be given, will it be proper for this court to exercise its inherent powers recognised in Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for review and modification of the sentences imposed by it while disposing of the Criminal Revision.

( 6 ) SO far as the first question is concerned Mr. Murty seems to be right in his contention that the Act should be given limited retrospective effect and if it is found to have come into force in a particular area on the date on which either the appellate Court or the Court of Revision has heard the appeal or revision, as the case may be, that Court has jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the Act. This view is supported by the language used in Section 31 (1) which is as fallows:

"notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or In any other law, an order under this Act may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other Court when the case comes before it on appeal or revision. "

The legislature by using the words "when th