K USHAMMA SREEBHAVAN Vs. PRABHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Memo is served on the respondent's counsel. There is no appearance. I am satisfied that the service is sufficient.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate had found the accused guilty and had sentenced the accused. The accused had preferred an appeal. The petitioner also preferred a revision against the sentence imposed. The petitioner was expecting that the appeal and the revision petition shall be taken up together for consideration; but the learned Magistrate on one date of posting, holding that there is no representation for the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by such dismissal of his revision petition. I find merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner. A revision petition, in which records have been called for, has got to be disposed of only on merits by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. That has not been done. Appeal against the impugned judgment is pending before the learned Magistrate also. In these circumstances, I am satisfied, that the impugned order does warrant interference by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court. There has been no proper disposal and the disposal does inevitably result in injustice.