ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has remained absent continuously. In view of continuous absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for consideration. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) assailing the order of dismissal of the complaint by the XXII Additional CMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court) and the order passed by the Fast Track Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) in criminal revision Petition No.208/2014. 3. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner being the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After recording the plea, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and the case was posted for cross examination of the complainant. The complainant has remained absent. Hence the trial Court expunged the evidence and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.04.2014. The First Appellate Court after considering the documents on record also dismissed the complaint holding that revision is not maintainable and the petitioner is bound to approach the Court by filing appeal vide its order dated 11.12.2014. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred this revision petition before this Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to appear and did not choose to argue the matter. 4. On perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court, it reveals that the complainant remained absent on the last date of hearing. Even on the same day, the matter was passed over and taken up at 4.10 p.m. Again the complainant was absent and there is no representation and the complaint came to be dismissed. In my considered opinion, dismissal of the complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of Cr.P.C. For convenience, Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is extracted as follows: 256. Non appearance or death of complainant. In my considered opinion, dismissal of the complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of Cr.P.C. For convenience, Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is extracted as follows: 256. Non appearance or death of complainant. If the summons have been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day; Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 5. On reading of the provision, it would clearly indicate that the dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant is nothing but an acquittal where the complainant is required to file appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. before this Court by seeking leave of this Court against the order of acquittal. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly held that the revision is not maintainable and the petitioner has to seek leave of this Court and file appeal as required under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. 6. Even though the matter is pending for almost 5 years, the petitioner’s counsel has not chosen to argue the matter even tried to convert the revision into appeal by filing necessary application. Therefore, revision petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, even on merit, the revision petition is not maintainable. The Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.