The accused in C.C. No. 361 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottapalam who was the respondent in Cri. R.P. 21 of 1992 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad has preferred this revision against the order dated 18-3-1993 in Cri. R.P. 21 of 1992. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the complainant in the said C.C. case. By the order dated 29-11-1091, learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner/accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of absence of the complainant when called. Learned Sessions judge entertained the revision petition filed by the complainant (respondent herein) and found that the order passed could not be sustained on facts. He held that 29-11-1991 was a Bandh day for which the complainant Could not attend the Court. The circumstances under which he could not attend the Court were beyond his control. He therefore allowed the revision and restored the case to file.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition and as such it was not maintainable under Section 397