Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The petitioner is facing trial in a case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a cheque dated 20.3.2015 for a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs issued by the petitioner, having been dishonoured on being presented by the complainant Lakhwinder Singh. The defence of the petitioner is that he had taken a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and that he has handed over a blank cheque to the complainant as security. Despite petitioner having returned Rs.30,000/- in installments of Rs.200/- per day, the security cheque has been misused by the complainant. During pendency of the proceedings, the complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, in the present petition, is that his application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling complainant Lakhwinder Singh for further cross-examination has been declined, depriving the petitioner an opportunity to confront the complainant with a diary in which entries had been made by the complainant regarding receipt of installments from the petitioner. In order to prove the said entries, the petitioner sought recalling of the complainant u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to enable him to effectively crossexamine him in context to the personal diary, alleged to have contained the entries to establish the repayment of Rs.30,000/-. The application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 1.9.2016 observing that in cross-examination of the complainant no question was ever put to the complainant regarding the factum of the diary or scribing of any entry by the complainant in the diary regarding receipt of installments of money. The evidence of the complainant was concluded on 2.7.2016.

3. Counsel for the petitioner was required to satisfy this court as to why the petitioner could not have filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court to challenge the legality and propriety of the impugned order by invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions court u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., [2016(4) Law Herald (SC) 2668 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1687] : 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 270, wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 641] : (2009) 2 SCC 307 and a later Division Bench of Supreme Court in Mohit alias sonu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [2013(5) Law Herald (SC) 3835] : (2013) 7 SCC 789, to settle the controversy whether availability of an alternative remedy of revision petition would constitute a bar for entertaining a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court. The Apex Court, relying upon Dhariwal Tobacco Product Ltd. Case (supra) has set aside an order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that on account of availability of alternative remedy u/s 397 Cr.P.C. The petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable.

4. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner. The Apex Court in Prabhu Chawla’s case (supra) has relied upon the judgment in Raj Kpoor and orthers vs. State and others, 1980(1) SCC 433 regarding scope of provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. ,besides considering the provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The following observations have been taken in to consideration by the Supreme Court , made in Raj Kapoor’s case (supra):-

“The first question is as to whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 stands repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. The opening words of Section 482 contradict this contention because nothing of the Code, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482. Even so, a general principle pervades this