BALASAHEB KESHAV THAKRE Vs. KUSUMBAI MANIKRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. J. Dixit, learned counsel holding for Shri S. M. Godsay, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the five revision applications, Shri P. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned A. P. P. for the respondent-State. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 has filed the complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as according to the respondent No. 1, the petitioners have committed the offence of defamation by publishing certain articles in the newspaper on the basis of the information supplied by Shri hanumant Chitnis who is also one of the accused while issuing process the learned Magistrate issued process as against the accused No. 4 i. e. Hanumant Chitnis but has not issued the process as against the petitioners and they were discharged in view of the provisions of section 203 of criminal Procedure Code. The said order was challenged by the respondent complainant by filing Revision Application under section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code before the sessions Court, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani by his order dated 19-8-1998 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed against the petitioners and the Sessions Judge himself issued the process against the petitioners returnable on 26-10-1998. What is pertinent to be noted is that the Sessions Judge does not state as to under what section of the Indian Penal code the process has been issued by him as against the petitioners. The said order is under challenge by filing these petitions.

(3.) IT appears that the matter was heard on 19-8-1998 and the Roznama of the said date shows that "the parties are present. Arguments heard of both sides and the judgment is pronounced. Para 4 of the judgment shows that Heard learned advocate Mrs. S. R. Kulkarni and so also heard a. P. P. Mr. Sharma for State. I do not feel it necessary to hear the arguments of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and that too for some reason. Pointing out this material, learned counsel Shri V. J. Dixit, submitted that the petitioners were not heard while passing the order and no reasons have been assigned by the Sessions Judge as to why right of hearing is denied to the present petitioners. He submitted that initially the order passed under section 203, Criminal procedure Code was in favour of the petitioners, and therefore, when the said order is being set aside by the sessions Judge, that adversely affects rights of petitioner which he gets as a result of discharge under section 203 of criminal Procedure Code and therefore, while passing the adverse order against the petitioners, it was bounden duty of the Sessions Judge to hear the petitioners. The learned counsel also invited my attention to section 398 of Criminal procedure Code wherein it has been contemplated that while directing further investigation or recording of evidence by setting aside the order passed under section 203 of Criminal procedure Code, the Court of Sessions or the High Court shall not give such directions unless the hearing is offered to the accused or persons discharged under section 203 of criminal Procedure Code.