JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is a revision by the accused against the revisional order of the learned Sessions judge. 2. On 26-1-1977 at about 10 A.M. son of opp. party No. 1 sustained fracture wound as a result of accident caused by the driver of a scooter. Since the accused was not known, on 29-1-1977 opp. party No. 1 reported the incident at the police station without indicating name of the accused. After coming to know the name of the accused, he intimated the same to police sometimes thereafter. On the basis of the information, C. R. Case No. 142 of 1977 was registered in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, without knowledge that charge sheet was submitted against petitioner on basis of which cognisance of the offence Under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. was taken summoning petitioner to stand trial, opp. party No 1 filed a complaint in the Court on 12-7-1978 against the petitioner where it was stated that informition was lodged before police. On 1-8-1978 two witnesses were examined and cognisance was taken by the learned Sub-dwis'onil Judicial Magistrate, Balasore summoning petitioner to face trial Under Sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. Petitioner filed a revision in this Court praying to quash cognisance in the complaint case which was registered in this Court as Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1978. In G. R. Case No. 142 of 1977, opp. party No. 1 filed an application for stay of further proceeding. Same hiving been refused, he filed a revision in Court of Sessions Judge which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 47 of 1978. This Court called for records of the said revision to be heard along with Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1978 and on receipt of the records, it was registered in this Court as Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1979. Roth the Criminal Revisions were heard together and it was directed that G. R. Case No. 142 of 1977 and complaint case No. I.C.C. (c) No. 305 of 1978 would be heard together as provided in Section 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. After receipt of the order and the records of the complaint case, learned Magistrate awaited for receipt of the records in G. R. Case No. 142 of 1)77 and on that account adjourned the case date after date till 6.11.85. 3. After receipt of the order and the records of the complaint case, learned Magistrate awaited for receipt of the records in G. R. Case No. 142 of 1)77 and on that account adjourned the case date after date till 6.11.85. When copy of the letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate to District Judge dated 10-10-1985 on the subject of observation of the Court made on the quarterly statement of criminal cases for 1st and second quarters, 1984 was received by the learned Magistrate, In the said letter, it was observed : "......The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint case till the original G. R record is traced out......" On basis of the aforesaid obsersation, corrplaint case was posted for hearing by order dated 18-12-1985. 4. On 24-6-1986, permitting petitioner to be represented for that day only, case was adjourned to 7-8 1986 directing complainant to come with his witnesses for hearing. After this order was passed, another order was passed, on representation of the learned counsel for the defence who submitted that accused may be acquitted since complainant was not personally appearing in Court nor he produces witnesses for evidence. Advocate for complainant did not turn up on call. Learned Magistrate passed an order bringing the prosecution to an end. 5. Against the order, opp. party No. 1 filed a revision before learned Sessions judge who in the impugned order has set aside the order of learned Magistrate directing trial of .the G, R. Case and complaint case together as had been directed by this Court earlier which is grievance of petitioner in this revision. 6. Before learned Sessions Judge, a certified copy of order dated 24-6-1936 of the learned Magistrate filed on behalf of the petitioner on 14-3-1988 where the operative portion in paragraph-3 reads as follows: "Since today is fixed for evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and this is Summons case, 1 feel it proper to apply the prevision of Section 256(1) Cr P. C. in the present case in its present, perspectives. Hence, I acquit the accd. u/s 258(1) Cr.P.C. and set him free at liberty forthwith". The said certified copy is annexed to this revision petition. It was applied for on 25-6-1986'and was made ready on 27-6-1986. 7. Hence, I acquit the accd. u/s 258(1) Cr.P.C. and set him free at liberty forthwith". The said certified copy is annexed to this revision petition. It was applied for on 25-6-1986'and was made ready on 27-6-1986. 7. Certified copy of the order dated 24-6-1986 which was fifed by complainant in revision in Court of the Sessions Judge along with revision petition contains paragraph-3 which is different. It reads as follows: "Since today is fixed for evidence of the complt. and his wit . nesses and this is a summons case, I feel it proper to apply the proviso of Section 258(1) Cr. P. C. in the present case in its present representatives, Hence, I discharged the accd. u/s 256(1) Cr. P, C. and set him free at liberty forthwith". It was applied for on 4-9-1986 and was made ready on 17-9-1986. Order dated 24-6-1986 in the record as it stands now containing paragraph-3 which is same as in the certified copy filed by the complainant. 8. Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that after passing an order of acquittal u/s 256 Cr. P. C, of which accused obtatned a certified copy, there was no scope for the learned Magis trate to correct the order. On the basis of order of acquittal, MY Nayak submitted that revision before the teamed Sessions Judge at instance of the complainant is not maintainable and since there is acquittal in complaint case prosecution on basis of police report would be barred u/s 300 Cr. P. C. 9. Certified copy of the order of acquittal was not only filed by accused in the Court of Sessions judge but also was pressed at the time of argument. Learned Sessions Judge ought not to have ignored the same. On perusal of the order sheet, I do not find that mistake in the order, if any, was brought to notice of the learned Magistrate to be corrected. If the order was corrected after passing the same and after certified copy, it goes without saying that the Same is improper tending towards delinquency oof the Presiding Officer. An enquiry should be made in this regard 10. Since an order of acquittal was passed which has subsequently been changed to one of discharge, for the purpose of this revision shill accept that learned Magistrate passed an order of acquittal of he accused. In view of Section 399. Cr. An enquiry should be made in this regard 10. Since an order of acquittal was passed which has subsequently been changed to one of discharge, for the purpose of this revision shill accept that learned Magistrate passed an order of acquittal of he accused. In view of Section 399. Cr. P. C. which provides that Section 401(4) would be attracted, Mr. Nayak is correct that learned Sessions Judge was no; comp- etent to entertain the revision at instance of the complainant who had a right of appeal against acquittal after obtaining special leave from this Court. Revision against the order of discharge as subsequently corrected was however, maintainable, 11. Mr. S. K. Nayak is correct in his submission that in view of Section 300 Cr. P. C. trial of the accused in the G. R. case barred. Decisions of this Court reported in Madan Mohan Tripathy Vs. Rama Chandra Behera, and 32 (1990) O. J. D. (Criminal) (Laxmidhar Pati v. Janardan Nanda where acquittal u/s 256(1) Cr. P. C. was held to be barred for trial in a second complint, would be applicable to trial of accused for the same offence in a case initiated on police report also. 12. In view of my aforesaid discussion, impugned order of learned Sessions Judge has become vulnerable and is liable to be set aside. 13. I, however, find that by setting aside order of learned Sessions Judge, wrong order passed by learned Magistrate where accused has been acquitted without jurisdiction would stand confirmed in 5uch circumstance, Section 401(4) Cr. P. C. would not be a bar to my exercising revisional power suo motu since there is always a distinction between exercise of revisional power at the instance of a party and suo motu Legislature has chosen to prohibit the party who has right of appeal to prefer revision. It has not prohibited Court from exercising; revisionsl power suo motu. Records have been called for and parties have been given opportinity of being heard which are the two pre-conditions for exercise of sou motu revisional power. 14. Order of learned Magistrate acquitting the accused u/s 256 Cr. P. C. violates the principle of natural justice. After adjourning the case to another date, complainant was not required to appear again. A benefit of adjournment given to complainant ought to have been taken away at a later stage. 14. Order of learned Magistrate acquitting the accused u/s 256 Cr. P. C. violates the principle of natural justice. After adjourning the case to another date, complainant was not required to appear again. A benefit of adjournment given to complainant ought to have been taken away at a later stage. Complainant could not have been blamed to be absent on call. On this account, order of learned Magistrate is vulnerable. 15. Order of acquittal is also without jurisdiction in view of revisional order of this Court directing both the complaint case and the G. R. case to be heard together u/s 210 Cr.P. C. which provides that the complaint case shall be treated to be one on police report. Once a case is on police report, Section 256 Cr. P. C. has no application and acquittal on account of absence of complainant is without jurisdiction. 16. Before Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came into force this Court met with such a situation in the decision reported in I. L. R. 1964 Cut 388 (Rairnon Ho and Anr. v. State). In that case complainant lodged information before the police on 21-7-1961 and filed a complaint on 4-9-1961. When investigation was in progress, on the basis of the complaint, cognizance against the accused persons was taken u/s 323 I. P. C. Subsequently, police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons u/s 324 I P. C. on the basis of which cognizance was taken. Complainant filed an application to withdraw the complaint on account of charge-sheet having been filed by the police. Learned Magistrate permitted the withdrawal and acquitted the accused persons u/s 247 Cr. P. C. of 1898. This was treated to be a mistake. It was observed that the fact having been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, he should merely have written in the order sheet that in view of the G. R. case, com- plaint was merged with the former and will not be dealt with separately. In exercise of the revisional power, order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and in its place, it was stated that the complaint case is merged with G. R. case. 17. In the present case, complaint had not been filed by the time cognisance had been taken in the G.R. case. In exercise of the revisional power, order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and in its place, it was stated that the complaint case is merged with G. R. case. 17. In the present case, complaint had not been filed by the time cognisance had been taken in the G.R. case. In the complaint petition itself, complainant had disclosed that he had informed the police and had also later furnished name of the accused. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate ought to have called for a report from the police before taking cognisance on the basis of the complaint. If a report would have been called for, in all probabilities, learned Magistrate could have know that charge sheet had already been filed and on perusal of the record or the C. R. case, it could not have seen that the cognisance had already been taken. Learned Magistrate on finding the same would have only written that cognisance having already been taken, complaint merges with the police report and would have proceeded with the G. R. case alone. 18. Since learned Magistrate has not fairly and judicially passed order of acquittal, the same is vacated and in view of earlier direction of this Court, both the C. R. case and complaint case are directed to be heard together in which accused shall face one trial. 19. In the result, there is no merit in this criminal revision which is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed