Revisional orders prejudicial to affected persons require prior hearing; limitation ran from summons date, keeping the revision in time.

A revisional order directing summoning of persons could not be sustained because it was prejudicial and was passed without giving the affected persons an opportunity of being heard; the hearing requirement in revisional jurisdiction applies equally to the Sessions Judge under the Criminal Procedure Code, so the order was set aside. The revision was not barred by limitation because time was computed from the date the petitioners were required to appear pursuant to the summons, and the filing fell within the prescribed ninety-day period. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing after notice to both sides.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revisional order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which directs summoning of persons and is prejudicial to them, can be made without affording them an opportunity of being heard; (ii) whether the revision petition was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a revisional order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which directs summoning of persons and is prejudicial to them, can be made without affording them an opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 extends to the Sessions Judge the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 401 of the same Code, including the limitation contained in Section 401(2). That provision prohibits the making of any order to the prejudice of an accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader. Since the revisional order directed the Magistrate to summon the petitioners, it was plainly adverse to them and could not be sustained if passed in their absence.

Conclusion: The revisional order was illegal and invalid for want of hearing and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision petition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The period of limitation was computed from the date on which the petitioners were required to appear pursuant to the summons issued in consequence of the revisional order. On that basis, the petition filed thereafter fell within the prescribed period of ninety days.

Conclusion: The revision petition was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded, the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing of the revision after notice to both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, no order prejudicial to an accused or other person can be made unless the person affected is afforded an opportunity of being heard, and the Sessions Judge is bound by the same restriction as the High Court under Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---