HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:186 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The accused in C.C.No.428 of 2009 filed this revision questioning the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2010 whereby the docket order, dated 13.4.2010, in C.C.No.428 of 2009 on the file of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, was set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are businessmen and they have money transactions. In view of the said monetary transactions, it appears, a cheque bearing No.482572 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.4,32,00,000/- was issued in favour of the respondent- complainant. However, as the said cheque was dishonored by the Banker with an endorsement ‘insufficiency of funds’, the respondent after following the procedure provided for under the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed the said complaint against the accused alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.428 of 2009. After service of summons, the petitioner-accused put in his appearance and the matter was adjourned on several occasions. Ultimately, on 13.4.2010 as the respondent-complainant was called absent, the complaint was dismissed. Questioning the said order, the respondent-complainant approached the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and filed Crl.R.P.No.122 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 10.8.2010 on the ground that the complainant is absent. Subsequently, another revision is filed against the docket order dated 13.4.2010 in C.C.No.428 of 2009 and the said revision was numbered as Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2010. As stated supra, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dated 22.12.2010 set aside the docket order dated 13.4.2010 and restored the C.C.No.428 of 2009. The same is questioned in this revision. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused is that once a revision is decided whether on merits or on technicalities, a second revision is not maintainable and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge ought not to have entertained Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2010. He further submitted that the said complaint was dismissed for default on 13.04.2010. Against the said order, Crl.R.P.No.122 of 2010 was filed on 01.06.2010. On subsequent dates i.e., on 19.07.2010, 28.07.2010 and 10.08.2010, the petitioner was called absent. In those circumstances, the said Crl.R.P.No.122 of 2010 was dismissed on 10.08.2010. Subsequently, the present Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2000 was filed on 27.08.2010 and again the complainant was absent on 08.12.2010. But, later, on 22.12.2010, the said Crl.R.P. was allowed. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that in view of the said conduct on the part of the first respondent herein-complainant in absenting himself before the Court below, no indulgence can be shown to him and prayed this Court to allow this Criminal Revision Case. However, the said contention is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent stating that this is not a second revision as provided for under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and as the earlier revision was dismissed on technicalities i.e., for default, the second revision is maintainable. According to him, the office took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge after being satisfied that the second revision is maintainable, directed the office to number it and thereafter, passed the order impugned herein. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. which deals with the exercise of powers of revision states that if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the said provision of law. Had Crl.R.P.No.122 of 2010 been decided on merits, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the second revision i.e., Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2010 is not maintainable. However, the facts in the instant case are different. Against the docket order, dated 13.4.2010, a revision was carried and the same was dismissed on 10.8.2010 on the ground that the complainant was absent continuously. Thereafter, the present revision petition, i.e., Crl.R.P.No.230 of 2010 was filed. The filing of the second revision cannot be said to be attracted by the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. As the earlier order dated 10.8.2010 is only on technicalities i.e., dismissed for default, in my considered view, the second revision is maintainable. Further, it appears that the office took an objection with regard to the maintainability of the second revision and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge after being satisfied that the earlier order was passed only on technicalities, he entertained the second revision. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned herein is not illegal. Further, the amount involved under the dishonoured cheque is Rs.4,32,00,000/-. In view of such serious allegation and the quantum of the amount involved, in my considered opinion, the petitioner-accused cannot be permitted to take a defence of this nature. Under the above circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 28th March, 2011 DR HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:426 OF 2011 22.3.2011