A. P. Lavande, J.: - Heard Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Joshi, APP for respondent no.1, Mr. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant, who is original complainant in Criminal Case No. 59/1992 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharni challenges the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Revision No. 163/2005 dismissing the revision filed by the applicant against an order of acquittal dated 7.11.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharni in Regular Criminal Case No. 59/92. 4. As stated above, the applicant is the original complainant, who filed the above revision being aggrieved by the order of acquittal for offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The Revisional Court has dismissed the revision application solely on the ground that the revision against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is not maintainable before the Sessions Court and it is only the High Court which can entertain the revision application against an order of acquittal. 5. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the view taken by the Revisional Court is patently erroneous. He further submitted that revisional jurisdiction which can be exercised by the High Court and Sessions Court is concurrent under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the informant in a State case is entitled to file revision before the Sessions Court aggrieved by the order of an acquittal passed by the Magistrate. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 supported the impugned order. Mrs. Joshi, learned A. P. P. appearing for the State has fairly conceded that revision to the Sessions Court at the instance of an informant against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is maintainable since jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court is concurrent and this Court has consistently held that a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Magistrate has to first approach to the Sessions Court and not the High Court unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 7. The only ground on which the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision application is that the revision against an order of acquittal lies only before the High Court. 7. The only ground on which the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision application is that the revision against an order of acquittal lies only before the High Court. The view taken by the Sessions Court is patently wrong and cannot be sustained. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court has revisonal jurisdiction. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court to entertain revision application against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate. This Court has consistently held that although jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court is concurrent, a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Magistrate has ordinarily to approach the Sessions Court and not the High Court unless exceptional circumstances are made out. See in this connection (i) 2002 Cr. L.J. 4196 (Ms. Cerena D'souza v State of Maharashtra and others (ii) 1999 Cr. L.J. 122 (Padmanabh Keshav Kamat Vs. Anup R. Kantak and others) and 1996 Cr. L.J. 172 (Tejram s/o Mahadeorao Gaikwad vs. Smt. Sunanda w/o Tejram Gaikwad and othes). I concur with the judgments passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court. 8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the Revisional Court is quashed and and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur to decide the revision application in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.