Criminal revision is barred when an appeal lies and was not pursued, so revisional jurisdiction cannot replace the appellate remedy.

A criminal revision is not maintainable where the Code of Criminal Procedure provides an appeal against the conviction and sentence. Sections 397 to 401 create revisional jurisdiction to test the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of subordinate criminal proceedings, but section 401(4) bars revision by a party who could have appealed and did not do so. Because the sentence included a fine above the petty-case limit, an appeal was available, and revisional jurisdiction could not be used as a substitute for that omitted appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal revision is maintainable when the Code of Criminal Procedure provides an appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Sections 397 to 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute a revisional scheme enabling the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, propriety, and regularity of proceedings before inferior criminal courts. Section 401(4) expressly provides that where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, revision at the instance of the party who could have appealed shall not be entertained. Since the sentence imposed was a fine exceeding the petty-case limit, an appeal was available under the Code. The revisional jurisdiction could not therefore be invoked as a substitute for the omitted appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When the Code provides an appeal against a conviction or sentence, the party who could have appealed cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as a substitute for that appeal.

---