T JAGADEESWARI Vs. MANNEM SINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint filed by the 1st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act resulted in acquittal of the accused because of the absence of the 1st respondent before, the Magistrate Court on the date of trial. Questioning the said acquittal, 1st respondent preferred Criminal Revision petition No.58 of 1999 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ongole. Contending that the Sessions Court was in error in entertaining a revision against the order of acquittal, when a provision of appeal is available, the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, filed this petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that criminal Revision Petition No. 58 of 1999 filed by the 1st respondent against the order of acquittal is not maintainable and so the proceedings Criminal R.P.No.58 of 1999 are liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that by mistake the said Criminal Revision Petition was filed before the Sessions Court and seeks permission for the 1st respondent filing an appeal before this Court.

(3.) Since the 1st respondent has a remedy of appeal to this Court, the revision against the order of acquittal of the petitioner ought not to have been entertained by the learned Sessions Court. Therefore 1st respondent is at liberty to withdraw the revision and take appropriate steps for filing appeal as per law open to him. With his observation the petition is disposed of.