M C GANESAN Vs. S N RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. 10475 of 1985 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Madras, has filed this revision under section 401, Cr1. P.C. to set aside the order passed in Cr1. R.C. 14 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, ordering re-hearing. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the revision are brief as follows:

(2.) The respondent preferred a complaint under section 500, I.P.C., against the petitioner accused alleging that the accused in his letter dated 20th February, 1984, to his brother-in-law made defamatory allegations with intent to defame him and his reputation and caused damage to his name. According to him, the accused made the above imputations knowing fully well that they are all false in order, only with an intent to defame him in the eyes of others. The defamatory words have been extracted in the complaint. The, said complaint was dismissed under section 203, Cr1. P.C., by the Magistrate. As against that order, the respondent herein filed a revision in Cr1 R.C. No. 14 of 1986 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision and directed the Magistrate to take the case on file, issue process to the accused and then dispose of the case according to law. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there was no service of notice of hearing on the accused of the proceedings before the trial Magistrate and that the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the revision against him without hearing him against the provision of section 401 (3), Cr1. P.C. It is further alleged that the Sessions Judge erred in not referring the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council, which had decided against the respondent complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused has no locus standi to appear in revision, that the failure to effect service of notice would not affect the order passed by the Sessions Judge, that the said revision was against the order passed under section 203, Cr1. P.C., and it is only between the Court and the complainant and that only after cognizance was taken by court, the accused is entitled to have a right of say and till then he cannot be heard to say that he was not given an opportunity.