1 (crim 584 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3147 OF 2009 (LEAVE TO APPEAL) Kikaram B. Suthar ...Appellant/Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- N.N.Vaishnawa & Co. for Applicant Mrs.M.R.Tidake -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The Applicant is the original Complainant. He had filed a complaint against the Respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as fine and out of the said amount, he was directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the Complainant-Applicant herein. 2 (crim 584 of 2010) 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant-Applicant herein preferred a revision application in the Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision Application No. 1297 of 2007. The Respondent No.2 did not file an appeal against the said order passed by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court acquitted the Respondent No.1 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in the revision application filed by the Applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Original Complainant- Applicant herein has preferred this application. 5. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed a patent illegality in acquitting the accused in the revision application filed by the Complainant. 6. I have perused the impugned order. In my view, the Learned Sessions Court has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. The said order is clearly perverse since in the revision application filed by the Applicant, the Sessions Court could not have acquitted the accused particularly when no appeal was filed by him against the order of conviction. The Sessions Court has observed that even though the revision application was filed by the 3 (crim 584 of 2010) original complainant, legality or otherwise of the judgment and order can be considered by the Sessions Court and, therefore, it proceeded to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. 7. The said observation made by the Learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal. Though the Respondent No.2 is served, none appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Applicant has filed affidavit of service. 8. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20.4.2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 297 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court. The Principal Judge of Sessions Court may assign this case to any other Sessions Judge except Shri A.T. Amlekar, who has passed the impugned order. 9. The Sessions Court shall decide the revision application filed by Applicant as expeditiously as possible and on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)