1997 (2) TMI 556 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against judgment and order dated February 9, 1996.
2. Dismissal of complaint under sections 323/452 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Legality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Barred revision petition by time.
5. Opportunity of being heard before passing an order.

Analysis:

1. The revision petition challenged the judgment and order dated February 9, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under sections 323/452 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The complaint filed by the respondent was initially dismissed by the Magistrate, who concluded that the alleged incident did not occur and the complaint was fabricated to pressure the respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgment, directed the Magistrate to summon the petitioners under the relevant sections of the IPC.

3. The petitioners contended that the Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order without hearing them, which they argued was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice. The respondent's counsel, however, argued that the revision petition was time-barred and since the complaint was dismissed without summoning the petitioners, there was no obligation for the Additional Sessions Judge to hear them.

4. The Court examined the powers of revision of a Sessions Judge under Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which equates the powers of a Sessions Judge to that of a High Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that no order to the detriment of an accused or person can be made without giving them an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Section 401(2).

5. The Court found that the order passed by the Sessions Judge directing the summoning of the petitioners in their absence was illegal and invalid. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated the necessity of providing an opportunity to be heard before passing any order prejudicing the accused or other persons.

6. Addressing the preliminary objection raised regarding the maintainability of the revision petition, the Court determined that the petition was filed within the prescribed 90-day period from the date of summonses issued by the Magistrate. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the Additional Sessions Judge for a fresh order after hearing both parties.