The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malvinder Mohan Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that no order under Section 401 (2) of CrPC 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.
Facts:
This petition was filed under section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned ASJ-02, South-East District, Saket District Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned ASJ while exercising its revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of the learned MM dated 15.09.2022 and 12.10.2022 whereby the petitioner was summoned and granted bail.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the impugned order was invalid because the petitioner was not given notice and was not made a party to the case by the state. It was also contended that the revisional jurisdiction is a concurrent jurisdiction that can be exercised by the High Court or Sessions Court. Section 401 (2) of the CrPC states that no order can be made against the accused or any other person without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, Section 399 (2) applies this provision to the Sessions Judge exercising the power of revision. The impugned order was made without giving notice to the petitioner who was being harmed by the cancellation of his bail, making the order invalid.
Respondent: it was contended that In this case, only Sunil Godwani was charged and the investigation is ongoing for the other people involved. The prosecutor argues that the magistrate summoned everyone in columns 11 and 12 and granted bail to those in column 12. The state was unhappy with this decision and filed a revision petition. The magistrate then interpreted the order to mean that the charges were dropped and released the person in column 11. Another revision petition was filed, and the higher court clarified that only the summoning order for the current petitioner was set aside.
Observations by the Court and Judgment:
The Bench opined that the learned additional sessions judge passed an illegal order by deciding the revision petition without issuing notice to the petitioner who has certainly been prejudiced by the impugned order against and in violation of provisions of Sections 399 (2) and 401 (2) CrPC.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case at hand, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was relegated back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law after issuing the notice to the parties affected by the orders dated 15.09.2022 and 12.10.2022 passed by the learned MM. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Case: Malvinder Mohan Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: CRL.M.C. 4247/2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
For Petitioner: Mr. Manu Sharma, Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Mr. Kartikay M., Mr. Karl Tustam Khan and Mr. Gyandender Kumar, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Raghvinder Verma, APP for the State. Insp. Satish Dagar, PS EOW Mr. Lakshya Dheer, Adv. for R-2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :