THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.249 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2008 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Parvathipuram whereby the order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram in S.T.C.No.50 of 2004 acquitting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside and the said STC was directed to be restored to file. 2 The facts in brief are that the Food Inspector, Parvathipuram Municipality filed a complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the contravention of Section 7 (i) ad 2 (ia) (m) of the said Act. The said complaint was taken on file as S.T.C.No.50 of 2004 and issued summons to the petitioner and pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared before the court below and copies of all documents were furnished to the petitioner as provided for under section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time for the examination of the petitioner under section 251 Cr.P.C. Ultimately on 23.01.2008 when the matter was posted, the complainant was absent and hence the trial court dismissed the said STC for default. Questioning the same the Complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.7 of 2008 under sections 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C. and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Parvathipruam while allowing the said appeal, directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the same the accused preferred this revision. 3 Heard both sides. 4 First of all, this court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned in this revision is not sustainable in law for the reason that the procedure followed by the complainant as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally unknown to criminal law. The law on this aspect is very clear. When a criminal case is dismissed for default and the accused was acquitted, the remedy left open to the complainant is to file an appeal against the said acquittal as provided under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Here, the trial court passed an order under section 256 of Cr.P.C., which amounts to acquittal. In such a situation the complainant ought to have filed an appeal under section 378 of Cr.P.C. before this court, but not a revision under sections 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. So the petitioner instead of approaching the Sessions court invoking the jurisdiction of this court under sections 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C., should have preferred an appeal as provided under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C before this court. Hence the order impugned in this revision is not sustainable in law since against an order of acquittal an appeal lies but not a revision. 5 Accordingly this revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2008 is hereby set aside. __________ 29.03.2011 Kvsn