IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2779 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.144/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.943/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- M.P.MOHAMMED,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR,RESIDING AT MANIKOTH IN AJANUR VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,P.O.MANIKOTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.M.ABDULRAHIMAN @ ANDUNHI,RESIDING AT CHEMBERI,KARIKKE VILLAGE,MADIKKERI TALUK, P.O.KARIKKE,D.K,KARNATAKA STATE. 2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.C.S. HRITIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 2779 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent No.1 in a private complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Trial court convicted respondent No.1 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and directed payment of compensation. On appeal by respondent no.1, learned sessions Judge accepted the appeal and acquitted respondent No.1. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. 2. Under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short, “the Code”) when the order of acquittal is passed on a private complaint, remedy of the complainant is by way of appeal seeking special leave of the High Court. That provision applies even when an order of acquittal is passed by the appellate court on the appeal preferred by the Crl.R.P. No. 2779 OF 2009 : 2 : accused. Since the remedy by way of appeal is provided, a revision at the instance of the party who could have appealed is not maintainable as provided under section 401 (4)of the Code. Therefore this revision is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel requested that revision petition may be allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the acquittal in appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case permission is granted. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right if any of the petitioner to challenge the order of acquittal in appeal as provided under the Code. Registry shall return the certified copies of the judgments produced to the petitioner, if applied for. (THOMAS P JOSEHP, JUDGE) jma