SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in appeal whereby the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan was allowed and the judgment dated 18.3.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri in Criminal Original Case No. 184/1984 has been set aside to the extent of the sentence awardable to the petitioner.
(2.) The learned trial Judge tried the petitioner for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and after convicting him released him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State challenged the said order by preferring a revision in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali. The Revisional Court at the time of final hearing of the revision, by order dated 27.8.2008, treated the revision to be an appeal and quashed the order passed by the learned Magistrate to the extent, probation was granted to the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision filed by the State was not maintainable. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali was not at all justified in interfering with the sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. He thus prays that the order dated 27.8.2008 deserves to be quashed.;