Fakirbhai Chhaganlal vs Ranjit Ratilal And Anr. on 20 August, 1982
11. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge also in the initial introduction of facts has specifically observed that the revision application is directed against the conviction of Fakirbhai Chhaganlal Bhagat (original accused) under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of restoration of possession under Section 456 of the Code. Therefore, the revision application was maintainable because it was a revision against the order of conviction and sentence. At the time of argument before the learned Sessions Judge, the point of' conviction and sentence was not pressed, but only the point of restoration of possession was pressed. However, as the order of conviction and sentence was not pressed, the learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to believe that now the revision would not lie. Even though I am going to refer to the decision of this Court in Yashinkhan Ahmedkhan v. Hushanbhai Rajabbhai (1978) 19 Guj LR 175 in details at a later stage. I must observe that that decision was cited before the learned Sessions Judge also and if he would have applied his mind to the facts of that case, he would have known that such a revision application would be maintainable even after the Advocate for the accused did not press the point for conviction and sentence of the accused.