The court can treat a revision petition as an appeal if it was filed under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so. The petitioner's conviction under Section 336 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was released on probation of good conduct based on the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case and relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner way back in the year 2014 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days, in case FIR No. 62 dated 12.3.2012, registered under Sections 307, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Aspect, at first re:maintainability:-

Notice was issued in this revision petition on 8.9.2014, pursuant to which, in the order dated 5.12.2018, the objection was raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of UT, Chandigarh regarding non- maintainability of the revision petition, in view of the fact that against the judgment/ order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 336 IPC and sentenced as above, in view of Section 376(B) Cr.P.C., the remedy of appeal was available.

Faced with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision petition having been filed in the year 2014, is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 401(5) Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was three months, which is less than already undergone by him.

However, this Court is unable to persuade itself to accept the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the aforestated provision does not permit filing of revision petition, as is being projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Finding the Court's view being firm, he further states that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under an erroneous belief that no appeal lies against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the present case and that revision was the only remedy available to him. He, however, makes a prayer to treat this revision as appeal, it having been filed way back in the year 2014 and if he is relegated to the remedy of appeal, a lot more time will be consumed and he has sought instructions from his client, who stated that his conviction may be upheld and his release on probation for good conduct be considered, which may help him get retiral/ pensionary benefits, he being a government servant.

It may be accentuated at the outset, the view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India on this issue, in the case of Joseph Stephen and others vs. Santhanasamy and others Criminal Appeal Nos. 90-93 of 2022, decided on 25.1.2022, wherein it has held that the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as an appeal as per Sub Section 5 of Section 401 Cr.P.C. on being satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:

'However, in a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non- consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriag