1. Consteting respondent No.2 has not turned up.

2. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who accepted the revision petition of respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 8.4.1996 passed by the Magistrate, Pathankot.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Mohinder Pal filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the proceedings were dropped after serving notice to the respondent on 8.4.1996. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 was subject to appeal and not subject to revision because the order of discharge in complaint case has the effect of acquittal.

4. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Balram Suraj v. Dev Raj Dhiman, 1987 (1) RCR 616, where it was held that the discharge of accused by Magistrate in a case triable as a summons case, the order of discharge has to be read as an order of acquittal under Section 255, Cr. P.C. In these circumstances, only (sic) was maintainable and not revision of respondent No.2. The petitioner has taken a specific objection in this regard of respondent No.2. The petitioner has taken a specific objection in this regard even before the revision Court that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. This aspect of the case has not been rightly decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Therefore, the order dated 30.1.1999 is hereby set aside and the order of the Magistrate stands restored. The revision petition stands allowed.

Petition allowed.