JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

In Criminal complaint No.210 of 2004 filed by respondent No.2-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, the four petitioners and two others were convicted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 14.02.2012 under Section 3 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') for contravening the provisions of Sections 3 , 5 & 21 of the Act, punishable under Section 3 6 of the Act. However, vide separate order of the even date, all the convicts including the petitioners were released on probation. The complainant of the case i.e. respondent No.2 filed revision (Copy Annexure P-2) against the above said order, whereby the petitioners had been released on probation. Vide order dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in Criminal Revision No.46 of 2012, the order dated 14.02.2012 releasing the petitioners and others on probation was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to make clear the punishment for each violation of the Act, after hearing on quantum of sentence.

2. It is against the above said order dated 03.03.2016 that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing the said order.

3. It is contended that petitioners did not prefer the appeal against the conviction, as they were in fact the victims and the right to file the appeal was not available to them under Section 3 72 Cr.P.C. The impugned order could not be passed by remanding the matter in a revision, as no appeal was filed by the respondent-complainant. Complainant could have filed appeal under Section 3 77 Cr.P.C., but it did not prefer to do so and that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, did not have the power to remand the matter under Section 3 97 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that conviction has been wrongly recorded because the petitioners are not the colonizers nor any colony has been carved out and in fact, the petitioners were the General Power of Attorney holders of Gurpal Singh, who has since died.

4. Respondents have defended the impugned order by pointing out that different sentences under Section 36 of the Act have been provided for violation of different provisions of law and therefore, the matter has been rightly remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to make it clear as to for which violation of law, which sentence is to be imposed, after hearing the convicts-petitioners on quantum of sentence.

5. Having considered submissions of both sides, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.

6. Concededly, petitioners did not challenge the conviction recorded by learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.02.2012. It is only respondent No.2-complainant, who challenged the order, whereby petitioners were directed to be released on probation. Section 3 74(3) Cr.P.C. gives right to any person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class to file appeal, even in respect of whom an order has been made or sentence has been passed under Section 3 60 Cr.P.C. Meaning thereby, petitioners could very well challenge their conviction as well as the order of releasing them on probation but they preferred not to do so. Once it is so, petitioners now cannot plead that their conviction has been wrongly recorded by the Trial Court.

7. The First Appellate Court was faced with the challenge only with respect to the order of the Trial Court, whereby petitioners were released on probation. The question is that whether revision against the order releasing the pet