RAVINDER BHATIA Vs. SATNAM SINGH M M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been moved by the petitioner, one for seeking restoration of the criminal revision No. 187/89 (Cr. M. 298/82) which came to be dismissed on September 22, 1989 and the other (Cr. M. 266/89) seeking condonation of delay in moving the said application.

(2.) The criminal revision has been brought under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order dated August 4, 1988 of Shri Shiv Charan, Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking the relief that warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner may be cancelled. The warrants of arrest appears to have been issued for non-payment of arrears of maintenance. On. September 22, 1989, the following order was made : <PG>242</PG>

(3.) So, it is evident from the aforesaid order that after the show- cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the petition be not admitted, the petitioner came to be dismissed in limine on merits. The short question which arises for consideration is whether such 'an order could be recalled and the criminal revision could be revised for giving some hearing to counsel for the petitioner. Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly lays down that no party has any right to be heard cither personally or by pleader before any court exercising its power of revision but the court may, if it thinks fit. when exercising such power, hear any party either personally or by pleader. So, there is no absolute right of any party to urge that he must be heard before any order in a criminal revision. In M/s. Kerala Transport Company v. D.S. Soma Shekar & Others, 1982 Cri. L J. 1065 and Kailash Nath Lahiri v. Mfs. Shantilat Khushaldas & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. 1977 Cri.L.J. 1520, it has been laid down that there is no right of a party to be heard in person before a criminal revision is decided. It is also quite clear that once a criminal revision has been dismissed on merits, the court has no power to review the said order.