1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant–original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 13th October 2017 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in the Criminal Revision Application No.220 of 2017, by which the Revisional Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No.1 herein–original complainant, thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 6th July 2017 passed by the 12th Additional J.M.F.C., Vadodara below Exhibit: 1 in the Criminal Case No.45674 of 2014.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:

2.1 The respondent No.1 herein – original complainant herein filed a private complaint in the Court of the 12th Additional J.M.F.C., Vadodara against the applicant herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The filing of the complaint by the respondent No.1 for the dishonour of two cheques issued by the applicant herein culminated in the Criminal Case No.45674 of 2014.

2.2 It appears from the materials on record that the Trial Court, vide order dated 6th July 2017 passed below Exhibits: 15 and 1 respectively, dismissed the complaint in exercise of its powers under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. To put it in other words, as the complainant failed to remain present before the Trial Court, the Trial Court thought fit to exercise its powers under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint.

2.3 The complainant, being dissatisfied with such order passed by the Magistrate, preferred an application Exhibit: 21 with a prayer to recall the order dismissing the complaint and for restoration of the criminal proceedings. The Trial Court, vide order dated 8th August 2017, rejected the application Exhibit: 21 on the ground that once the complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted, the Trial Court would not have any jurisdiction to recall such order and restore the proceedings.

2.4 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court, the respondent No.1 herein – original complainant filed the Criminal Revision Application No.220 of 2017 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Vadodara. The 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in exercise of its revisional powers, allowed the revision application and quashed the order passed by the Magistrate dated 6th July 2017 dismissing the complaint for default.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Court, the applicant – original accused is here before this Court with this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Pankaj Chhajed, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant accused vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel as such did not address on the merits of the revision, but confined his submissions only on the legal aspect of the matter and contended that in view of Section 143 of the N.I. Act, an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is to be tried summarily and accordingly in consonance with Section 262, Cr.P.C. the procedure of summons case is to be followed by the Magistrates while trying offence under the N.I. Act, and therefore, in view of Section 256, Cr.P.C. the dismissal of complaint in the absence of complainant amounts to acquittal of accused, and therefore, no revision against such an order was maintainable in so far as against an order of acquittal, in a case instituted upon a complaint, an appeal against acquittal is maintainable under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. in this Court after obtaining leave to appeal from this Court. The submission in substance is that once the Magistrate exercises its discretion to dismiss the complaint for default under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., the effect of the same would be the acquittal of the accused and once the accused is acquitted, the only alternative a