A year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment maintaining the ft.:ie. The State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal to the- High Court against the acquittal of the accused under section 465 read with section 4 71 IPC. The accused also preferred a revision application against his conviction under section 420 IPC. Both the matters were B heard together and by a common judgment the High Court dismissed the revision application of the accused and allowed the State's appeal and convicted the accused under section 465 read with section 4 71 and sentenced him to ~igorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by special leave. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appeal to the c High Court was not competent in view of the provisions of section 417 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is admitted that this case is governed by the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. We may, thefefore, at once read section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, so far it is relevant for our purpose : D "417 ( 1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sectiO'J1 (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case E in which the offence has been investlgated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from the order of acquittal". * * * Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, prior to the Amendment F Act XXVI of 1955 provided for presentation of appeoals by the public prosecutor on the direction of the State Government. The 1955 Amendment introduced several changes and provided for appeals at the instance of the complainant as also on the direction of the Central Government in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establislunent. Further changes were introduced in the matter of appeals against acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Proce- G dure, 1973, with which we are not concerned in this appeal in view of the repeal provisions under section 484(1), Cr. P.C. The Delhi Special Police Establishment (briefly the Establishment), a central police force, is constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946) (briefly the Delhi Act). Under section 2 of the Act, the Centr<11l Government H may constitute a special police force, called the Delhi Special Police Establishment, for investigation of certain offences or class of offences as notified under section 3 of the Delhi Act. Under section
