THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.988 of 2004 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 08.04.2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.1813of 2004 in C.C.No.37 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Miryalaguda. 2 Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.37 of 2001. However, as the petitioner was absent, the court below dismissed the complaint by order dated 06.04.2004. Seeking restoration of the said case, the petitioner filed the present Crl.M.P.No.1813 of 2004 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 08.04.2004. Hence the present revision. 3 I am of the considered view that the procedure followed by the petitioner is totally unknown to criminal law. When a C.C. is dismissed for default and the accused was acquitted, the remedy left open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against the said acquittal as provided under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. If supposing the complaint is dismissed under section 204(4) Cr.P.C. the remedy is to file a revision. But here in this case he has chosen a different way and filed an application under sections 256 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C. for restoration of the said case. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an inherent power conferred on the High Court and the trial court as well as the appellate court cannot exercise the said power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The order impugned in this revision is perfectly justified and needs no interference. 4. Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and the same is thus dismissed. -------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn