2009 (5) TMI 570 - HC - Indian Laws

Endorsement on the RPAD Slip - Magistrate has passed the order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the present applicants, only relying upon the endorsement on the RPAD Slip - Held that - no notice to the present applicants - accused has refused to accept the notice and hence the learned Magistrate passed the order - before passing any order, an opportunity s required to be given to the petitioner as his valuable right is affected - applications are allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Nos. 2 of 1988 without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused.

Analysis:

1. The applicants filed applications to quash the order dated 10-7-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused persons were personally present before the Magistrate, and the order allowed accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 to be joined. The applicants challenged this order, alleging lack of opportunity for hearing.

2. The Court noted that the Magistrate passed the order based on an RPAD Slip endorsement without giving the applicants a chance to be heard. The Court emphasized that before passing such orders, the accused should be given an opportunity to present their case. The Court highlighted that while RPAD service is permissible for out-of-state accused, in this case, the notice was refused, leading to the order without proper hearing.

3. Considering the lack of opportunity given to the applicants, the Court decided to allow the applications without delving into the merits of the case. The order dated 10-7-1989 in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1988 was quashed and set aside by the Court.

4. The learned advocate mentioned that the applicants would appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on a specified date. The Court clarified that no fresh notice was necessary, and the Magistrate would hear both sides and decide on the application in the criminal case. The parties were allowed to submit relevant documents for the Magistrate's consideration.

5. Based on the observations and directions provided, the Court allowed the applications, making the rule absolute. The applicants were granted relief due to the lack of opportunity for hearing before the order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.