C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. This revision petition raises certain crucial questions of law in the following factual background. The revisionist was the accused in S.T. Nos. 4911 of 2006, 4662 of 2007 and 4592 of 2007, on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. In all those cases he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant in all those cases was also one and the same person. Those three cases were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. Evidently, as per the said common judgment dated 22.11.2008 the revision petitioner was found guilty in all the three cases and he was convicted and imposed with similar but, separate sentence in all those cases. In fact, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months in each of those cases. On realisation of the amount of fine it was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner filed a common appeal against the said order of conviction though there is no enabling provision for doing so. In other words, the revision petitioner was to file three separate appeals for challenging the conviction entered against him and the sentence imposed on him in the aforementioned three cases despite their joint trial and disposal by a common judgment. However, he has chosen only to file a common appeal. The said appeal was numbered as Crl. A. No. 989 of 2008 and for suspending the sentence the revision petitioner moved Crl.M.P. No. 4076 of 2008 in the said appeal. The sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail as per order dated 17.12.2008. Subsequently, the matter came up for final hearing and it was finally heard on 17.10.2014. It is evident from the impugned judgment itself that after finally hearing the matter on 17.10.2014 the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.10.2014. Evidently, taking note of the objection raised by the respondent-complainant with respect to the maintainability of the single appeal filed against the common order of conviction instead of filing three separate appeals against the aforesaid three cases disposed of by the common judgment, the appellate court framed the following point for consideration:--

"Whether the appeal is maintainable?"

In fact, that point alone was considered as pep the impugned judgment. The parties were permitted to address on that point on 17.10.2014 and the appellate court found that in the absence of any specific provision for filing a joint appeal Crl. A. No. 989 of 2008 filed against the common judgment in S.T. Nos. 4911 of 2006, 4662 of 2007 and 4592 of 2007 could not be maintained and in that view of the matter the appeal was held not maintainable and it was dismissed. This revision petition is filed in the said circumstances.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In the light of the indisputable and undisputed facts expatiated earlier the question to be considered is whether the dismissal of the appeal in the manner it was done, is sustainable and if not what would have been the course open to the appellate court? Evidently, S.T. Nos. 4911 of 2006, 4662 of 2007 and 4592 of 2007 were jointly tried and a common judgment was delivered by the trial court in all those cases, on 22.11.2008. The revision petitioner sought to assail the said common judgment and only a joint appeal viz., Crl. A. No. 989 of 2008 was filed under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. to challenge the said common judgment, in fact, the order of conviction. True that, there is no specific provision enabling the revision petitioner to file a joint appeal against the conviction and sentence in three separate cases though those cases were jointly tried and d