1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar Bansal S/O Late Shri Desh Raj Bansal Resident of Bahadur Ganj, Tehsil & P.S Bajpur, Dist- Udham Singh Nagar ………………………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. M/S Jai Ganesh Inter National 649 Vet Ganj Ludhiyana, 141008 Through partner Ajay Kumar Gupta 3. Arun Kumar Gupta R/O Bhuttesha Mand first Floor, Ludhiyana 4. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta partners M/s Jai Ganesh Inter National 649 Vet Ganj Ludhiyana 141008 New Address – R/O Kothi No. 999 Phase –II, Urban Estate, Jamal pur Ludhiyana …………..Respondents Shri S.K.Mandal, Advocate present for the revisionist. Shri Karan Anand, Advocate present for respondent no.2,3 & 4 Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A present for respondent no.1 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 20th of May 2006, passed by Additional Civil 2 Judge(Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 245 of 2003, whereby, said court has acquitted the respondents Sanjeev Gupta, Arun Kumar and Ajay Gupta from the charge of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. (2) Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 raised an objection that this revision is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in sub section (4) of section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under said provision an appeal against the order of acquital is maintainable in the High Court with leave to appeal from said court. In reply to this learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this court to sub section (5) of section 401 of the Code which empowers the High Court to treat an application filed under section 401 as an appeal, provided such appeal is maintainable. (3) Had it been the stage of admission, this court could have preferred to treat this revision/application as an appeal but the revision was filed long back in the year of 2006 and admitted in the year 2007. It is listed today at the stage of final hearing. As such this court is not inclined to treat the revision as an appeal. Therefore, in the opinion of this court in view of the provision contained in sub section (4) of section 378 of Cr.P.C, this revision is liable 3 to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.13.04.2010 NP