APU KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as to how the person who is to decide is to proceed, law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He is not a Judge in the proper sense of the word : but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter and he must honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. There must be no malversation of any kind. There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice". [Spackman vs. Plumstead District Board of Works,1985 10 AC 229 :54 LJMC 81.]

(2.) In the instant criminal revision only question for adjudication is as to whether one of the essential principles of natural justice, viz audi alteram partem was violated by the learned trial court and if so, whether the impugned order suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.2. Admittedly also in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2, a child was born and he is maintained by the opposite party No.2.