Revisional remand for lawful sentencing is valid; inherent jurisdiction cannot bypass an unexercised appellate remedy.

Where a conviction was not challenged in appeal, the revisional court could confine itself to sentencing and validly remand the matter to the trial court to pass sentence according to law, preserving the accused's right to appeal against that sentence. The remand was held neither illegal nor irregular. An application under Section 482 CrPC was also not maintainable to reopen the merits of conviction when the applicant had an ordinary appellate remedy but had not pursued it; inherent jurisdiction was not to be used to bypass that remedy. The revisional order was therefore left undisturbed, and the applicant was left to pursue remedies after sentence was imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside probation and remanding the matter to the trial court for passing sentence according to law; (ii) whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when the conviction itself had not been challenged by appeal.

Issue (i): whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside probation and remanding the matter to the trial court for passing sentence according to law.

Analysis: The conviction had not been assailed in appeal, so the revisional court was concerned only with the question of sentence. In such a situation, the revisional court could exercise jurisdiction in relation to sentencing. The order of remand was not illegal or irregular, and it preserved the accused's right to challenge the sentence after it was imposed. Support was drawn from the view that remand to the trial court for suitable sentence is proper where the accused should retain a right of appeal against the sentence.

Conclusion: The remand for passing sentence according to law was valid and did not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when the conviction itself had not been challenged by appeal.

Analysis: Inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked to reopen the merits of a conviction when an appeal was available but not filed. Since the applicant had an effective remedy against conviction and had not pursued it, and the matter had only been remanded for sentencing, no interference was called for at that stage. The applicant was left to pursue the available remedies after sentence was passed.

Conclusion: The Section 482 application was not maintainable on the merits of conviction and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the revisional order and left the applicant to pursue remedies after the trial court passed sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where conviction is not challenged in appeal and the revisional court is concerned only with sentence, remand to the trial court for lawful sentencing is permissible, and inherent jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the ordinary appellate remedy.

---