The main legal point established is that revision lies against the order of conviction affirmed in appeal, and settlement of dispute by way of compromise does not warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ORDER

1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Appeal No.46/2019, CIS No.944/2019 whereby, the appeal against the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.5 in Regular Criminal (Complaint) No.802/2015, convicting and sentencing accused petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity-"the Act of 1881"), has partly been dismissed.

2. A preliminary question arises as to maintainability of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the final order of conviction.

3. It is well established and recognised practice that against appellate order confirming the judgement of conviction, the revision petition lies under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in case of Vivek Rai & Anr. vs. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General & Ors.-JT 2015 (2) SC 32, held as under:

"5..................... It is well known practice that generally a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in Court itself..........."

5. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 14 SCC 809, held as under:

"16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order."

6. Similarly, another three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, held as under:

"20. It may be noted here that Section 143 of the Act makes an offence under Section 138 triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC). After trial, the progression of further legal proceedings would depend on whether there has been a conviction or an acquittal.

In the case of conviction, an appeal would lie to the Court of Sessions under Section 374(3)(a) Cr.PC; thereafter a Revision to the High Court under Section 397/401 Cr.PC and finally a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking special leave to appeal under 136 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in case of conviction there will be four levels of litigation.

In the case of acquittal by JMFC, the complainant could appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.PC, and thereafter for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. In such an instance, therefore, there will be three levels of proceedings."

7. Although, the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, do not provide expressly that revision lies against confirmation of judgement of conviction in appeal; but, from the tenor of these provisions, such inference can reasonably be drawn. Section 397 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(l) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examinatio