Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner, by way of this criminal misc. petition, challenges the order dated 22.3.2012 passed in a revision petition filed by non-petitioner - Gopal Das Gupta, who is the co-accused and submits that in the revision petition filed by non-petitioner - Gopal Das Gupta, the petitioner who is a co-accused and against whom charge was also framed, was required to be heard.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of his absence, the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below') in revision petition is vitiated more so as in the impugned order dated 22.3.2012 observations have come against the petitioner and the criminal liability has been shifted entirely upon the petitioner by the Court below without giving any hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the charges were framed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954") as against the petitioner as well as non-petitioner Gopal Das Gupta.
(3.) Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. wherein the provision enjoins upon the revisional court to give opportunity of hearing to the accused or other person. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Versus Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., 2012 10 SCC 517 where the accused was held to be entitled to opportunity of hearing in revision petition.;