IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1059 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) M/s Sanjay Tobacco Company and another …………Applicants Versus State and another …………Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for respondent no.1 Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocat for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.154 of 2004, Ravi Manchanda v. State and others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.2 Ravi Manchanda filed a complaint before Ist A.C.J.M., Haridwar against the applicant Suman Prakash Gupta under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) and under Section 420 of IPC. On the basis of this complainant, a criminal complaint case no.266 of 2003 was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. During the course of trial, 13.5.2004 was the date fixed and next date fixed was 25.5.2004 for 244 Cr.P.C. On 25.5.2004 the complainant was not present in the court. Thereafter 8.6.2004 was the date fixed but on that date also the 2 complainant again did not appear before the trial court. Thus, IInd Special C.J.M., Haridwar vide his order dated 8.6.2004 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Against the said order dated 8.6.2004, the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 17.10.2006 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 17.10.2006, the petitioner has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a revision before Sessions Judge, Haridwar against the order of acquittal and the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 17.10.2006 allowed the said revision. He argued that against the order of acquittal, only the appeal is maintainable in the High Court as per the provisions of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar has erred in law in entertaining the said revision and allowing the same. I find force in the argument advance by learned counsel for the applicants. Before further discussion, it would be pertinent to mention Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complaint may present such an appeal to the High Court.” A perusal of the above-quoted section makes it abundantly clear that against the order of acquittal, the complainant may present the appeal to the High Court, after the leave to appeal is granted to him by the High Court. 3 Hence, the judgment and order dated 17.10.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, against the order of acquittal, is without jurisdiction and the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in entertaining the revision and allowing the same. For the reasons recorded above, the application preferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.6.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.154 of 2004, Ravi Manchanda v. State and others, is set aside. However, liberty is given to complainant/respondent no.2 to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. Interim order dated 22.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.07.2010 RG