MANU CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners original accused have prayed for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Principal Civil Judge, City Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision Application No.74 of 2007.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are that respondent No.2 original complainant filed one complaint on 22nd March 2001 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad. The plea of the petitioners was recorded. As the original complainant was not remaining present, the petitioner No.2 gave an application for dismissing the complaint on the ground of non-availability of the complainant. The said application was given on 12.12.2005. The learned Magistrate posted the application dated 12.12.2005 for final hearing and by order dated 18.11.2006 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order to dismiss the complaint. Respondent No.2 original complainant filed restoration application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13 on 20th November 2006 and the said application came to be dismissed by order dated 2nd February 2007 on the ground of absence of the complainant and his advocate. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, respondent No.2 preferred revision application before the learned City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad being Criminal Revision Application No.74 of 2007 on 22nd February 2007 and on the very next day i.e. on 23.2.2007 the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad vide his order dated 23rd February 2007 allowed the said revision application even without issuing the notice to the petitioners. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the petitioners original accused have preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that when the order passed by the learned Magistrate which was in favour of the petitioners original accused came to be set aside by the revisional court, he ought to have heard the petitioners. It is submitted that, therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd February 2007 is in breach of the principles of natural justice and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. It is also further submitted that even before allowing the said revision application no notices were issued upon the respondents of that revision application i.e. the petitioners herein.