- (1.) S. K. Agarwal,. J. This revision arises against the judgment dated 17-5-1993 passed in Criminal Revision No. 341 of 1991 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed in Criminal Case No. 6of 1991 under Section 125, Cr. RC.
(2.) THE present revision is preferred against the aforesaid order setting aside the grant of maintenance allowance to the applicant. Before entering into the merits of the case this Court on 13-12-1999 had directed as under:- "last opportunity is given to the parties to appear and argue the case failing which the case shall be decided on merit. " List has been revised. No one has appeared even today on behalf of the ap plicant to press I his revision. Shri Ran Vijay Singh learned Counsel for the opposite party is present. The case was listed for delivery of judgment on 18-2-2000. On this day the Counsel for the applicant ap peared before the Court and desired to argue. He was heard. Before proceeding, 1 wish to discuss the law relating to right to hearing by a party in a criminal revision. Code of Criminal Procedure con templating such contingencies and situa tions enacted Section 403. It reads as under: -Option of Courts to hear Parties. -Save as otherwise provided by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either per sonally or by the pleader before any Court exer cising its power of revision; but the Court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by a pleader.
(3.) FROM a bare perusal of Section 403 there remains no room for any com placence regarding the rights of any party to be heard by any Court who is exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It further sub jects this denial to the right of hearing of any party to two conditions. (a) where the code itself specially provides, the right of hearing cannot be cur tailed or (b) where the Court on its own after an examination of records find it fit to hear the parties, may hear them either personally or through their pleaders. Thus no party preferring a revision application before any Court competent to exercise revisional powers enumerated in Sections 397 to 401 Cr. P. C. has a right of hearing. This provision is quite contrary to the right of hearing in appeals. No appeal can be decided without affording oppor tunity of hearing to the parties because it is so mandated by law.;