The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge's Court to pass judgment on the appeal filed by the complainant and the maintainability of the appeal, which should have been challenged before the High Court.

ORDER :

Learned counsels from both side are physically present in the Court.

2. The present respondent, as a complainant had instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (herein for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") against the present petitioner, arraigning him as the accused, in the Court of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") in C.C.No.359/2010, alleging the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act") against him.

3. After trial, the said case ended in acquittal of the accused by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 05-02-2013.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant (present respondent) filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.92/2013, under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., in the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court").

5. After contest, the appeal preferred by the complainant came to be allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside. Consequently, the respondent therein (petitioner herein) was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and was sentenced accordingly.

Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge's Court in Criminal Appeal No.92/2013, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. The respondent (complainant) herein is being represented by his learned counsel.

7. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the argument from both side. Perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgments under revision and also the records.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the present respondent (complainant) in the criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Judge's Court, was not maintainable, as such, the matter deserves to be remanded.

In his support, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 2013 SC 395, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of any kind, only to the High Court.

The matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court had also arisen from out of a complaint filed by the complainant.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent (complainant) fairly conceded that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court ought not to have been challenged before the Sessions Judge's Court but ought to have been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., and seeks liberty to file a criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court before this Court.

In his support, he relies upon a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Govindaraju H. Vs. M.S. Somashekar in Criminal Revision Petition No.23/2016 and dated 27-11-2019.

In the said case, in a similar circumstance, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had granted liberty to the complainant/respondent to approach the concerned Court of law for challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in the criminal case.

11. In the instant case also, since the present respondent, as a complainant, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the present petitioner (accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in the Criminal Case instituted by him under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., approached the Sessions Judge's Court in Criminal Appeal No.92/2013 instead of the High Court, the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge's Court dated 16-08-2014 in Criminal Appeal No.92/2013 is a judgment passed with