Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8.7.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Criminal Revision petition No. 55/92(18/89), whereby he dismissed petitioner's Revision Petition in his default. The said Revision Petition was preferred against the order dated 7.7.88 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sujangarh passed in Criminal case No. 227/88, where by he had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence Under Sections 341, 323/34 I.P.C.
3. The petitioner had filed the said Criminal Revision Petition initially in the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge sent for the record of the lower Court and the case was adjourned number of times for final hearing. Thereafter, the said Criminal Revision petition was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh before whom on 7.4.92, the petitioner and his Advocate were not present. On 24.6.92 the presiding officer was on leave and the case was listed on 8.7.92. On that day, the petitioner and his Advocate were not present. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor was present. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said Criminal Revision petition in default, for the absence of the petitioner.
4. The contention of Shri Khatri, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order is not a legal order in there of law and that the same amounts to abuse of process of Court because once the Criminal Revision petition was admitted for hearing and the record was sent for, it was the imperative duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have decided the said Revision petition on merits or he ought to have adjourned the said petition.
5. The learned public prosecutor has not supported the impugned order.
6. Section 399(i) Cr.P.C. lays down that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers, which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 401 Section 401(2), in its turn specifically says that no order under Section 401 shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. Thus it is sine qua non to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused or other person before any order to his prejudice is passed in a Revision Petition.
7. In Smt. Prem v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) p. 385, the Revision Petition was decided by the Revisional Court without hearing the petitioner. It was held that it constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice as also the provisions of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the Revisional Court was directed to take the revision petition on its original number and to decide the same on merits after hearing the accused-persons.
8. In the instant case, the revision was admitted after hearing and the record was sent for. In such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have examined the record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby he had taken cognizance against the petitioner. Instead, the learned Sessions Judge simply dismissed the Revision Petition in default, which is against the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the impugned order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 8.7.92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh is hereby quashed and he is directed to restore the Criminal Revision petition No. 55/92/18/89 to its original number and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the learned public persecutor and after examining the record of the lower Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 27.9.1993 for further proceedings.