Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.—This case is a fall out of recurrent errors of law committed by the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court resulting into a shockingly anomalous situation, wherein both the Courts below have concluded respective proceedings without having any jurisdiction. But here before this Court only the order passed by the lower appellate Court is under challenge in the instant revision.

2. The accused revisionist Shyam Sharan Tiwari has approached this Court by means of instant criminal revision challenging the judgment and order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015 (Ramesh Chandra Nagaich v. Shyam Sharan Tiwari), whereby the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.9.2015 passed in favour of revisionist by the Special Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2014 (Ramesh Chandra v. Shyam Sharan Tiwari) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun has been set aside on the ground that the trial by the lower Court was conducted without jurisdiction and with such finding, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai has been directed to decide the Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2014 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

3. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, and perused the record.

4. The uncontroverted facts of the case in brief are like this. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint case against the present accused-revisionist before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai for alleged offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well as Sections-404 and 420 of I.P.C. The complaint in question dated 17.10.2011 was registered as Misc. Case No. 345 of 2011 and was supported with delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith its affidavit. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 alleges in his complaint dated 17.10.2011 that the present revisionist was having business terms for last few years regarding sale and purchase of Peas and Lentil and the revisionist was timely paying the dues of supply of said crops. Further allegation is that the opposite party No. 2 sold total 20 quintals desi peas in the month of April 2011 to the present revisionist in usual course of business, for which the revisionist paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash and promised to pay Rs. 35,000/- after one month but later on, the revisionist started dilly-dallying payment of said remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- and when it was insisted upon by the opposite party No. 2, a cheque No. 478453 dated 24.6.2011 was issued by the revisionist in favour of opposite party No. 2 in lieu of said dues, which was presented in the Bank on 30.6.2011 for payment but the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and when the opposite party No. 2 apprised the revisionist about insufficiency of funds in the account, he abused and threatened the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter a legal notice dated 21.7.2011 was sent by the opposite party No. 2 to the revisionist, to which the revisionist neither responded nor made any payment.

5. It may be culled out from the record that after filing of complaint in the year 2011, the cognizance was taken by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.10.2011 and the complaint proceedings were registered as Misc. Case No. 345 of 2011, subsequent to which statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter, the accused -revisionist was summoned by the Court vide order dated 29.5.2013, who appeared before the Court below and was released on bail. It also reveals from the record that subsequently the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai passed order dated 20.9.2014 transferring the proceedings from his own Court to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jalaun at Orai, which after t