SAILENDRA PRASAD TALUKDAR ( 1 ) IN the present case the judgment and order dated 24. 4. 2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24 Pgs. (North) in criminal Revision No. 110 of 2005 has been sought to be assailed. ( 2 ) IT appears that learned Court of revision dismissed the revisional application with the observation that the same is not maintainable. In this context, learned Court held that the case under reference was on a police report where the revisionist before it was the informant who filed the F. I. R. Learned Court took into consideration the fact that no leave was obtained by the revisionist against the order of acquittal. Then, learned Court referring to section 378 of the Cr. P. C. observed that the revisional application has no leg to stand upon as there is provision for appeal. Mr. Satpathi submits that the learned Court was not justified in dismissing the revisional application on that score. Referring to the decision in the case of Niranjan Kumar Das v. Ranadhir roy and Ors. reported in 1990 Cr LJ 683, it was submitted that since the informant, being the present petitioner, did not have right of appeal against the order, he could very well file a revisional application, Mr. Satpathi has further invited attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Jagbir and Anr. v. State of punjab reported in AIR 1998 SC 3130 : 1998 C Cr LR (SC) 366 in support of his contention that the informant being the present petitioner could very well file an application under Section 401 of Cr PC for revision of the order. ( 3 ) MR. Auddy appearing as learned Counsel for the opposite party/ state, however, submits that in absence of any leave being obtained from this court, the order of the learned Court of revision cannot be assailed, ( 4 ) BUT after due consideration of all relevant facts and materials and having regard to the decision as referred to earlier including that of the Apex court, I am inclined to hold that the learned Court of revision was not justified in rejecting the revisional application on that score alone. The judgment and order passed by the learned Court of revision which is under challenge before this Court be, accordingly, set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Court of revision which is under challenge before this Court be, accordingly, set aside. ( 5 ) THE present application is disposed of with a direction upon the learned Court to hear out the said revisional application which was filed before it under Sections 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decide the same in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE present application being CRR 1932 of 2006 is, accordingly, disposed of. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the learned Counsel for the parties expeditiously. .