ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sonak, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1. None for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as .the Code.) the applicant challenges the judgment and order dated 11.5.2006 passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2006 dismissing the revision application filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.11.2005 passed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 were prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the report filed by the applicant. By judgment and order dated 15.11.2005 learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence charged. Aggrieved the applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.10/2006. Learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the criminal revision application holding that the revision was not maintainable against the judgment and order impugned and appeal was the only remedy. 3. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the case filed against the respondent was State case the applicant who had filed First Information Report was entitled to file revision application against impugned judgment and order. This legal position has not been disputed by Mr. Sonak, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 4. Section 378 of the Code provides appeal against acquittal to the High Court in a State case, whereas in a case instituted upon a complaint which ends in acquittal the complainant has to seek special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of acquittal in terms of Section 378 (4) of the Code. There is no provision in the Code or any other statute which permits first informant to prefer appeal against judgment and order of acquittal passed in a case in which report is filed. In Kishan Swaroop Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi( AIR 1998 Supreme Court 990) the Apex Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. In Kishan Swaroop Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi( AIR 1998 Supreme Court 990) the Apex Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1788) has held that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revision against an order of acquittal In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional cases. It is also consistently held by this High Court that although revisional jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court is concurrent ordinarily the person aggrieved must approach the Sessions Court first unless there are exceptional circumstances to approach the High Court directly. (See 2002 Cri. L.J. 4196 :Ms. Cerena D'souza Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) 5. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court though concurrent, ordinarily a person aggrieved must approach the Sessions Court first. Therefore, it follows that the first informant aggrieved by an order of acquittal in a State case is entitled to invoke revisional jurisdiction and since ordinarily such person has to approach Sessions Court, I see no reason as to why revision against the judgment and order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in a State case should not be maintainable before the Sessions Court. I, therefore, find that the view taken by the learned 3rd Adhoc Sessions Judge is clearly unsustainable in law. Learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. Learned Judge ought to have decided revision on merits. 6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.2006 passed by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.10 of 2006 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur to decide the revision application on its own merits bearing in mind the principles regarding interference laid down by the Apex Court in revision against the judgment and order of acquittal. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.