( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2009 Janabai w/o Jagannath Potdar, R/o Shivnagar, Near Rajmata Jijamata High School, Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Satya Communications through its Proprietor Shri Mahadev s/o Siddramappa Tikambare, R/o Shivajinagar, Latur. 2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Rubile, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner is original accused in relation to a private complaint case instituted by the respondent ( 2 ) No. 1 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The private complaint case bearing S.T.C.C. No. 3270/2003 came to be dismissed in default on 03-11-2008. The respondent No. 1/complainant was not present and, hence, the dismissal was ordered. With the result, the petitioner came to be acquitted under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent No. 1 preferred criminal revision application No. 128/2008 after dismissal of his restoration application filed on 04-12-2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The revision application is allowed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgement. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The only question involved in this petition is whether the order of dismissal rendered under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code is revisable one and the learned Sessions Judge could have invoked the revisional jurisdiction so as to set aside such order. The point involved is squarely covered by Division Bench judgement in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1930 of 2007 (Gajanan Parshuram Chopade v. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Barloni). The Division Bench held that the revision application under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code for challenging the order of dismissal of the ( 3 ) complaint under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable and the only remedy available against the said order is to prefer an appeal under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I had an occasion to deal with similar fact situation in “Vinayak Kumar A. Maliwal v. Ramesh K. Saboo” 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. 428. This Court held that the only remedy in such a case would be to file an appeal against order of acquittal rendered under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say, the impugned judgement of the revisional Court is quite unsustainable and deserves tobe quashed. There was no jurisdictional authority to the revisional Court to interfere with the order of dismissal which amounted to acquittal of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order of the revisional Court is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. The respondent No. 1 is at liberty to invoke the appellate remedy, if so advised. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP275-09