THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1218 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2002 passed in Crl.A.No.160 of 1999 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the first respondent in C.C.No.45 of 1999 by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate for Municipal Cases, Vijayawada was set aside and the first respondent herein was acquitted of the offence 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 borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner on 04.04.1996 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred and he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as part payment of the said debt on 16.08.1007 and endorsed the same o the reverse of the said promissory note. But when the petitioner demanded for the balance amount, the first respondent issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, in favour of the petitioner towards discharge of the said balance amount, which on presentation for clearance was dishonoured for the reason ‘account closed’. 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 pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- 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.4,000/- 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.160 of 1999 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada as stated supra, by his judgment dated 01.07.2002 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