HEERAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that section the learned Magistrate summoned only Jagdish accused for the offence under 494,1. P. C. and no order has been passed regarding discharge of the other accused, the applicants, which impliedly means 'discharge'. On revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to summon the accused applicants and also asked the parties to appear before him on 1-4-1993. From the order it does not appear that the accused applicants were parties to the revision and they had been given an opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the applicants also argued writ without giving an opportunity of hearing under Section 398, Cr. P. C. , the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was bad and not sustainable in law.

(2.) 1 perused the relevant record. No doubt the applicants have not been discharged in clear terms by the Magistrate but before passing the order for summoning them by the Magistrate, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have heard them also.