SOMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnad in Cr.R.C. No.48 of 1983 setting aside the order of dismissal under Section 203 Crl.P.C. and remanding the matter to the trial Court for enquiry. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the learned Sessions Judge who enquired into the revision case did not issue any notice of that petition and therefore, the order was passed in their absence and without giving them an opportunity. This is the essence of the contention in this petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both sides. It is common ground that the criminal complaint preferred by the second respondent was dismissed by the trial Court under Section 203 Cr.P.C. In other words, till the process is issued by the trial court, the petitioners do not get the status of the accused. Consequently, they have no right of audience before the revisional authority. The proviso under Section 398 Cr.P.C. merely states that no Court shall make any direction under this section for enquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause. But that contingency does not arise in this case as this is not a case of discharge by the trial court.

(3.) In this connection learned counsel for the second respondent drew my attention to a few rulings of our High Court on this point. In M. Jalaluddin v. Syed Ibrahim 1978 Mad LW (Crl) 178 the learned Judge has held that the accused has no locus standi to appear unless the process under section 204 Cr.P.C. is issued to him. An earlier case reported in Ramabhadra Odayar v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Mad 1198 is also produced before me and it clearly lays down that the accused persons have no locus standi to appear for an enquiry under Chapter 16 of the Code and it even went to the extent of stating that the sessions Judge's action in issuing notice to the accused was improper and even undesirable.