( 1 ) ONE Sri S. N. Tandon was prosecuted by the Regional Provident Fund Inspector, Kanpur for contravening the provisions of Section 38 (i) and (ii) and Section 76 of the Employees, Provident fund Scheme, 1952. He was found guilty of the offence charged. The learned City Magistrate considered it appropriate to let him off with a warning.

( 2 ) SRI S. N. Tandon then preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow. A preliminary objection was raised there that no appeal lay because the learned Magistrate had not passed any sentence on the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the case of Hari charan v. State, reported in 1950 All WR 678: (AIR 1951 All 442), held that no appeal lay under section 408, Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal was, accordingly dismissed as being not maintainable.

( 3 ) THEREUPON a criminal revision was filed in this court against the learned Sessions Judges order upon the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in holding that no appeal was maintainable. The revision came up before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of my brother, Mulla and brother Tandon, My brother, Mulla, was of the view that no appe