ff IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUK g3^ Stnfto Ber»r'» ....3<°^3^ -••^^^..^ Ot3! .€-""^ ^ U;......->"^\<J- V-' ..-: -^ Vs Rakesh Sharma, son of Late AAoolchand Sharma, aged 40 years, resldent of Sriram Tower, Vyapar Vihar ftoad, Potice Station Givil Lines, "ah. <& bistrict Biiasour (CQ). Sandeep Agarwal, son of Shri Jagdish Agarwal, aged 32 years (wrongly written as 3 years in the impugned order), Proprietor Light Zone, In front of High Court, Poiice Station City Kotwali, Tah. <S bistrict Bilaspur (C6) ^-^ ^ •z- c'j^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT B1LASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 330/2011 Versus ;CI E Rakesh Sharma Sandeep Aganwal Apeearance: Shri D.C. Venna, counsel for the applicant. SinflleBenctrJ-lon'ble^hri Prashant Kumar Mishra^sL ^ ORAL ORDER (9.12.2011) Learned counsel for the applicant submits thaf the trial court by its order dated 5/01/2011 taten cognizance and issued notice to the applicanVaccused and that order was under challenge before the revisiona! court. (2) By the impugned order the revisional court has set aside the order of the trial court and h-as remanded the matter for decision afresh in accordance with law. (3) According to learned counsel the revisionai court has directed the trial court to reyiew.jts eariier order and Ihe said part of the order is without jurisdiction in as much as undercriminal law no court has powerto review its own order. (4) After perusal of the order passed by the revisional court particularly para 16 thereof it appears that after setting aside the order passed by the trial courf the revisional court has remanded the matter to the trial court for ^ reconsideration in accordance with law. (5) Revisional Court has ample power to pass suoh an order because the order under revision was passed only for taking cognizance on the complaint lodged by the complainant under Seotion 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and once that order is set aside and the revisional court is of the opinion that entire material was not considered there is no impediment or legal bar before the revjsional court to issue a direction made to the frial oourt for deciding afresh:" (6) s Even otherwise the complainant as well as the applicani/accused shall get an opportunity to address the trial court on the issue and infact the revisfonal court has granted an opportunity to the appiicant to raise arguments before the trial court at the stage of taking cognizance in the matter. Such an order oannot be said to be violating any provision of law or that if allowed to stand the said order would occaslon failure ofjustlce. (7) No case for entertaining this petition is made out. (8) Accordingiy, it is dismissed. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge •T.-i—sss;^s^'