1. The revision and the criminal miscellaneous petition are filed by the same petitioner, de facto complainant in a case which had been disposed of after trial by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, Wayanad.

2. The case numbered as C.C.No.339 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court arose from the report filed by the police after investigation in a crime registered on the complaint of petitioner, indicting the accused person, common 1st respondent in the petitions, for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). Learned Magistrate after trial, found the accused not guilty, and acquitted him of the offence. While passing the order of acquittal in favour of the accused, the learned Magistrate forming an opinion that there was no reasonable ground for the de facto complainant to make accusation of the offence imputed against the accused ordered to proceed against him under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”). A show cause notice was issued to the complainant why he should not be called upon to pay compensation to the accused person. Responding to that notice, petitioner appeared before the magistrate and resisted the proceedings initiated. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner holding that the complainant had no reasonable cause for making the accusation against the accused directed him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Crl.M.C.No.5036/08 is directed against that order dated 12.09.2006, which is produced as Annexure II in that petition.

3. Petitioner has challenged the order of acquittal rendered by the magistrate in the case proceeded against the accused filing the revision.

4. Notice given in the Crl.M.C, the 1st respondent/accused has entered appearance through counsel. So far as the revision, though notice was ordered to the 1st respondent/accused by order dated 02.02.2007, no process had been taken by the revision petitioner till date, and that being so, no enquiry on the merits of the revision is called for. An order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused is not liable to be interfered without giving notice and providing an opportunity to the person in whose favour such an order had been made by the court below. Revision is, therefore, only to be turned down, and it is ordered accordingly.

5. The order passed by the magistrate awarding compensation to the accused person, was challenged by the petitioner filing a revision before the Sessions Court. That revision, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merits affirming the order of the magistrate. That revision itself was not maintainable since a statutory appeal is provided against an order awarding compensation under Section 250 of the Code. A complainant against whom an order of compensation is made, is in considering his right of appeal, put on the same footing as if he had been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine. His right of appeal has then to be considered with reference to the provisions covered by Chapter XXIX of the Code. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Code confers a right of appeal to the complainant when he has been ordered to pay compensation exceeding Rs.100/-, under the Section. Where an appeal is provided, no revision could have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge against the order passed by the magistrate awarding compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/-to the accused. That mandate under sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Code applies to a Sessions Judge also in entertaining a revision as evident from the provision covered by sub-section (2) of Section 399 of the Code. So, in a case where an incompetent revision has been filed and dismissed on merits, normally no further challenge under Section 482 of the Code could be entertained. However, on the facts and circumstances disclosed in the case. I find, challenge against the order