Heard the submissions made on either side.
2. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Crl.R.P.No.8 of 2007 directing to issue summons to the accused 3 to 8, who are the petitioners herein.
3. The respondent prosecuted the petitioners herein, ranked as A3 to A8 along with A1 and A2 for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli having perused the complaint given by the respondent and the sole statement of the respondent in the petition filed by him under
section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code took cognizance of the aforesaid offence as against A1 and A2, who are only Partnership Firm and the Managing Partner of the firm respectively and discharged A3 to A8, the petitioners herein from the proceedings.
4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. without issuing notice to the petitioners herein, heard the respondent and passed an order setting aside the order of the trial court and directing to issue summons to the petitioners herein also.
5. It is apparent that the impugned order, which is challenged in the Criminal revision case passed by the learned Judicial Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners herein.
6. The revisional Judge under section 399 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code has all the powers conferred on the High Court with reference to the power of Revision under section 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 401(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure code would read that no order shall be passed under section 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code to the prejudice of the accused or any other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard on the person or by pleader to defend the case.
7. Of course, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, while taking cognizance of the offence by issuing summons has not called upon the proposed accused to defend the plea of taking cognizance against him. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in cases where summons were refused to be issued as against certain accused shown in the complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate, right has accrued in favour of such accused. Such a right accrued already in favour of the accused can be tilted by intervention of the revisional court only after giving an opportunity to the said accused to defend the order passed in his favour.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Supreme Court, in P.Sundarrajan and others -Vs- R.Vidhya Sekar (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 345 wherein it has been categorically held that the revisional authority while hearing the challenge made against an order of dismissal of the complaint should issue notice to the accused to defend his case, as otherwise the principles of natural justice would be violated.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the court finds that though the order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, where accused did not make their appearance, the order passed by him has already vested some right on the accused. The learned Principal Session Judge may set aside the order challenged only after giving notice to the accused to defend the order already passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his favour.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and both the parties or their counsel, as the case may be, shall appear before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore on 20.07.2009 without fail and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore shall dispose of the Criminal Revision case afresh without being influenced in his earlier decision already rendered by him, within two weeks from 20.07.2009.
11. The Criminal Revision case accordingly stands allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
tsh