Parshuram Arora vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2013 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal Case No.522 of 2012, Rajendra Singh vs. Parshuram.

The facts, necessary for the disposal of the instant case, briefly stated are as follows:-

A complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner and proceedings of criminal case were instituted. On 08.01.2013, the Court closed the opportunity of adducing evidence at the stage of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and dismissed the complaint under Section 245(2) of the Code. Aggrieved by it, the respondent no.2 preferred the criminal revision, in which the impugned order was passed. One of the grounds, which is taken by the revisionist is that he was never served in the criminal revision.

None is appearing on behalf of the revisionist as well as on behalf of the private respondent.

According to Section 399 of the Code, a Session Judge may exercise all or any of the powers, which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub Section 1 of Section 401 of the Code. Section 401 sub Section 2 of the Code, inter-alia, provides that no order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

The record of criminal revision is before the Court. Perusal of which reveals that, in fact, notices were never served upon the revisionist. The order in the criminal revision has been passed without informing the revisionist. Therefore, an error in the eye of law has been committed, which vitiates the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2013. The impugned order dated 12.07.2013 was passed without informing the revisionist, therefore, it deserves to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the court below for afresh decision after informing the parties and accordingly the revision deserves to be allowed.

The revision is allowed.

The impugned order dated 12.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.20 of 2013 by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CBI), Nainital is set aside.

The case is remitted back to the learned court below. The criminal revision shall be heard afresh after informing the parties concerned.