PUNJAB ELECTRIC CENTRE Vs. CLAYTON AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that complainant-petitioner had filed this revision petition under this belief that a revision is to be filed in the event of dismissal of a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short "the Act of 1881" whereby, the accused-respondent No. 2 as discharged of the offence by the trial Court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of sub-section (5) of Section 401, Crimial P.C. an appeal lies agains the impugned-order of dismissal of a complaint. Sec. 401(5), Crimial P.C. stipulates, as under:

(2.) In view of this position, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this revision petition should be treated as an appeal and, thereafter, be heard and decided on merits.

(3.) Be that as it may, there is no vested right with the complainant to make a request that revision should be converted into an appeal in all circumstances since, there is no binding obligation on the Court to treat a revision as an appeal in any event whatsoever. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to argue the case on merits. After examining the impugned-order of the trial Court, I find no justification for converting the revision petition into an appeal in view of the specific finding recorded by the trial Court in its impugned-order dated 15.11.1997 from which, it is apparent that since the legal notice which was served upon the accused prior to filing the complaint was not in accordance with law being contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1881, the trial Court did not find the complaint tenable and accordingly dismissed the same.