KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 18-8-92, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in criminal revision No. 2 of 1992 whereby he has rejected the application 11 Kha moved by the Gaon Sabha, the applicant for its impleadment as a party in the revision aforesaid. ( 2 ) IN short, the facts of the case are that the proceedings under S. 133, Criminal Procedure Code, were instituted at the instance of the applicant for removal of unauthorised constructions raised by opposite party No. 1 Ram Deo on the public path and the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. These proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P. C. terminated against opposite party No. 1, who feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad, filed Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1992 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which came up for hearing before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. In that revision Ram Deo did not implead the Gaon Sabha as a party though the proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P. C. were initiated at its instance and accordingly the Gaon Sabha moved an application for its impleadment as a party in that revision. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge rejected that application (11 Kha) on the ground that Gaon Sabha is not a necessary party to the revision nor the Statute require the complainant to be impleaded as a party in the revision before the Sessions Court. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the applicant, which is a Gaon Sabha, has an independent capacity to sue or to be sued in the Court of law. It can own, purchase or sell its property. It exercises its power through Pradhan/chairman. The proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P. C. were initiated on the application of the applicant and the applicant prosecuted opposite party No. 1 and succeeded in establishing its case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and got the order of removal of unauthorised constructions passed by the trial Magistrate, therefore, in the revision before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge it has got a right to defend itself through a counsel of its choice and not through the D. G. C. (Criminal), who can represent only the State of U. P. and not a private party. In case the order passed by the Magistrate is reversed by the revisional Court, the applicant will be prejudiced. He further argued that the applicant being an aggrieved party could file the revision in the High Court against the order of the lower revisional Court and the present revision is fully competent. In support of the above submissions the learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of the Court to the provisions of Sec. 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on its strength argued that if the appeal is filed from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted on the complaint, the complainant is required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. He also contended that once the accused is convicted and sentenced for an offence by the trial Court, in appeal the complainants interest is looked after by the State but even then the Statutes require an opportunity of hearing to the complainant in the case instituted on the complaint. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, Gaon Sabha was not only proper but necessary party in the revision before the lower revisional Court and the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge has gravely erred in rejecting its application for impleadment as a party in the revision before him. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party in counter argued that the applicant is not necessary party at all nor it has a statutory right to be impleaded. He further contended that the Gaon Sabha has not authority to file the present revision and in support of his argument he relied upon a decision reported in Gram Samaj v. Bhondi, 1985 0 Alllj 469. In that case the petition was filed by a private person, who was neither a panel lawyer for the Gram Samaj nor had legal authority from the competent authority to represent the Gaon Sabha. Here in the present case the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter dated 8-3-92 of the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, whereby he has authorised Sarva Shri Viresh Mishra and Narvada Mishra, Advocates, to prosecute the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha both in the Courts below as well as in the High Court. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that Sri Viresh Mishra had no authority to file the present revision fails. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon a case law reported in 1980 All LJ 554 in support of his above contention but the facts of that case are different to the case in hand. In that case after the revision has been decided on merit the complainant moved an application for recalling the final order passed by the High Court and this Court held that the complainant has no legal right to get the whole case re-opened. ( 6 ) THE law provides that the complainant/aggrieved party can institute the proceedings and prosecute any person. After conviction is recorded, the complainant/aggrieved party is given an opportunity of hearing under S. 383 (1), Cr. P. C. If the Court records a verdict of acquittal, the complainant/aggrieved party is competent to file an appeal against the order of acquittal under S. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even in a police Chalani case the complainant is competent to file a revision against the order of acquittal before the appropriate Court under S. 397/401, Cr. P. C. This Court has been accommodating the complainant party to hear in bail applications, criminal revisions, criminal appeals and even in the writ petition of criminal nature if the complainant/aggrieved party is interested, though he has no legal right therefor. The complainant/aggrieved party may or may not have legal right of being heard but the rule of prudence and natural justice require that the aggrieved party must be afforded an opportunity to have its say personally or through a counsel his choice, if he so desires. Thus, in my opinion, the Court below was not justified in not affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant after impleading it as a party to the revision. Incidentaly, it may also be mentioned here that the move on behalf of the Gaon Sabha for impleadment as a party in the revision before the Additional Sessions Judge has not been opposed by the D. G. C. (Criminal) or the State. When the proceedings under S. 133, Cr. Incidentaly, it may also be mentioned here that the move on behalf of the Gaon Sabha for impleadment as a party in the revision before the Additional Sessions Judge has not been opposed by the D. G. C. (Criminal) or the State. When the proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P. C. were initiated at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and it was a party before the Magistrate, in all fairness the opposite party No. 2 should have impleaded as a party in the revision before the Sessions Judge. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 18-8-92 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1992, is set aside and the Court below is directed to hear the applicant as well in the revision after impleading it as a party. Revision allowed. .