THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1272 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2002 passed in Crl.A.No.19 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the first respondent in C.C.No.436 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool was set aside and the first respondent herein was acquitted of the charge punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act the de facto complainant before the trial court filed this revision. 2 The facts in brief are that the first respondent issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.22,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kurnool, in favour of the petitioner towards discharge of rental amount, which on presentation for clearance was dishonoured for the reason ‘not arranged for’. After following due procedure laid down under law i.e. issuance of statutory notice etc., the petitioner filed the complaint before the trial court against the first respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. The trial court having analysed the entire material available before it, found the first respondent guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.24,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The trial court further observed that on realisation of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.22,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation. As against the said judgment passed by the trial court, the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2000 and the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool as stated supra, by his judgment dated 26.02.2002 allowed the said appeal and set aside the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Questioning the same, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 3 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner instead of approaching this court invoking the jurisdiction of this court under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., should have preferred an appeal as provided under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C since against an order of acquittal an appeal lies but not a revision. 4 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. --------------- 15.07.2010 Kvsn