E MOHAMMED HUSSAIN Vs. F JAGBAR NACHIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the accused against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur in Cr.R.C. No.26 of 1982 reversing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.C. No.1021 of 1982, without giving notice to the petitioners.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners herein on 4-1-1980. The case was investigated and referred as false. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed a private complaint on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. It was dismissed on 5-10-1982. Against that order, the respondents filed Cr.R.C. No.26 of 1982, on the file of the Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and ordered an enquiry under S.398 of the Cri.P.C. Now the case has been charge-sheeted and is pending as C.C. No.365 of 1983, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai. The petitioners/accused had entered appearance. Their grievance is that no notice was given to them by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision case and, therefore, the order remitting the case to the learned Magistrate is not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for all parties. The short point for adjudication is, whether notice is necessary to the petitioners/accused in the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge. This question has come up for decision before this Court and it has already been decided. Even as early as in 1926, a Full Bench of our High Court has held in Appa Rao Mudaliar v. Janaki Ammal, (1926) ILR 49 Mad 918 that sending notice to the accused at the stage of enquiry contemplated under S.202 of the Cr.P.C. is not necessary. What is more, the Full Bench has held that any such practice of sending a notice is improper and must be discontinued. In the decision reported in Thiyaearajan, S. v. AyyamperumaL 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 212 also, it has been observed that in a revision filed against an order of dismissal under S.203 of the Cr.P.C. the Sessions Judge need not give notice to the accused.