https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176817 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. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176817 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176817