https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176686 The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order directing a preliminary inquiry without notifying the accused violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court emphasized that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before any prejudicial order is made. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, entitling the accused to be heard in any revision application. The High Court's failure to hear the appellant before passing the order was deemed a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing a fresh hearing with the appellant's participation. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176686 The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order directing a preliminary inquiry without notifying the accused violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court emphasized that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before any prejudicial order is made. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, entitling the accused to be heard in any revision application. The High Court's failure to hear the appellant before passing the order was deemed a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing a fresh hearing with the appellant's participation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176686