Jharkhand High Court
Md. Iqbal Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13423 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.936 of 2025
------
Md. Iqbal Hussain, aged about 52 years, son of Late Md. Kamruddin,
Resident of Mirza Galib, Upper Kulhi, P.O. and P.S.-Jharia, District-
Dhanbad. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines-III
: Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer
to quash and set aside the order dated 01.03.2025 in Criminal Revision No.36 of
2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and where under
the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has allowed the criminal revision behind
the back of the petitioner who was the sole opposite party of the said revision;
without issuing any notice.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bal Manohar Jalan vs. Sunil
Paswan & Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 640 paragraph-9 of which reads as
under:-
"9. In the present case challenge is laid to the order dated 4-
3-2009 at the instance of the complainant in the revision petition
before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the
accused mentioned in the first information report get the right of
( 2025:JHHC:13423 )
hearing before the Revisional Court although the impugned order
therein was passed without their participation. The appellant who is
an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the
express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this
ground, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside
and the matter has to be remitted."
and submits that it is the solemn duty of the revisional court to grant
opportunity of hearing to the opposite party-accused before deciding the
criminal revision when a valuable right has accrued particular to the petitioner;
with the learned Magistrate passing the order rejecting the prayer of the
prosecution to adduce evidence, to summon the witnesses sought by the
prosecution to be examined as witness in the case. It is lastly submitted that the
prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits
that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has not committed any illegality by
not issuing any notice to the petitioner before passing impugned order.
Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.N. Santhanam
vs. K. Elangovan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 321 paragraph-5 of which reads as
under:-
"5. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which
deals with the High Court's power of revision reads as under:
"401.High Court's powers of revision.--(1) In the case of any
proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which
otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its
( 2025:JHHC:13423 )
discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal
by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section
307 and, when the Judges composing the court of revision are equally
divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner
provided by Section 392.
(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.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court
to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of
the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High
Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous
belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the
interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application
for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly."
A plain reading of sub-section (2) of the said provision makes it
abundantly clear that the High Court in exercise of its revisional
power cannot pass any order which may cause prejudice to the
accused or other persons unless he has an opportunity of being heard
either personally or by pleader in his own defence". (Emphasis
supplied)
where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain
manner held that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot pass
any order which may cause prejudice to the accused person or any other
person unless such person has an opportunity of being heard either personally
or by pleader in his own defence. It is a settled principle of law that, the same
principle has been applicable to the Sessions Judge; as the Sessions Judge
exercises the same power as High Court under Section 401(1) of Cr.P.C. by
virtue of Section 399 of the Cr.P.C., thus, a Sessions Judge also cannot exercise
the revisional power to pass order; which caused prejudice to the accused or
other persons unless he has an opportunity of being heard either personally or
by pleader in his own defence.
( 2025:JHHC:13423 )
6. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that
the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has neither issued any notice to the
petitioner nor given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who was
the opposite party of the said criminal revision. In view of settled principle of
law and the facts of this case as indicated above, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, being the revisional court
has committed a gross illegality by passing an order which caused prejudice to
the petitioner, who was the accused person of the case, without giving any
opportunity to him of being heard and without issuing any notice in criminal
revision, though, the petitioner was the sole opposite party, in the said criminal
revision.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 01.03.2025 in Criminal Revision No.36 of
2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside.
8. The Criminal Revision No.36 of 2025 is remitted to the Sessions Judge,
Dhanbad with the direction that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to pass a
fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, by issuing
notice to him.
9. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 01st of May, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
