- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment 3.10.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby the revision filed by the respondent has been accepted.
(2.) THE contention of the present petitioner is that the court below has taken cognizance against respondent no.1 on the protest petition of the petitioner. Against which a revision petition has been filed by respondent no.1 and without the compliance of provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. and without giving the present petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the revision petition has been accepted and order of taking cognizance has been set aside, the present petitioner is aggrieved with the order. The counsel for the respondent also did not object about the legality of the provisions of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "401(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence." A bare perusal of the above reveals that when the cognizance has been taken against the accused respondent no.1 and a revision has been filed by him, it was the mandatory duty of the revisional court to give an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner who is, admittedly, affected from the impugned order and reliance has been placed on Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Privae Limited and nother ( (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 801).
(3.) LOOKING at the above, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set aside.;