Judgment A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh dated 4/8/1990 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order passed by the learned Munsif and judicial magistrate, Suratgarh dated 19/10/1989 whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance against the accused and dismissed the protest petition and accepted the [mal report submitted by the Police. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED against this order of the learned Magistrate the complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumagarh Camp Suratgarh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order and held that the learned Magistrate has not proceeded in the matter properly and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved against this order, this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed before this Court by the accused Jeet Singh. ( 3 ) THE only submission urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad is that while entertaining the revision petition and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19/10/1989 the petitioner Jeet Singh should have also been heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but as he was not heard therefore this petition should be allowed and the case should be remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the petitioner before setting aside of the order of dismissal of the complaint. As against this Mr. Kharlia, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not necessary to hear the petitioner as no process was issued against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Revisional Court to hear the petitioner. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 401 says that 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. Section 397 says that the Sessions Judge while exercise the revisional power may exercise all or any of the powers which may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 401. Section 397 says that the Sessions Judge while exercise the revisional power may exercise all or any of the powers which may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 401. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional power as contended by the learned Counsel, has to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when no cognizance was taken against him by the Trial Court and the same is being taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the petitioner before setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) MR. Kharlia, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not necessary to give notice to the accused at the time of taking cognizance and in support thereof learned Counsel has invited my attention to Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others wherein it has been held as under: At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima fade satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits and demerits of the case nor Can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited one. ( 6 ) AS against this Mr. Bhagwati Prasad has invited my attention to A. K. Subbaiah and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others. In this case, a complaint was filed by the State Government before the Principal Sessions Court Bangalore on the basis of the sanction granted by the State Government under Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as one of the persons defamed is the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka; The Trial Court after the filing of the complaint took cognizance of the matter and issued process against the petitioners who were accused persons before the Court below. Against this issue of process, the accused petitioners filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. Against this issue of process, the accused petitioners filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P. C. before the High Court of Karnataka seeking relief of quashing of the order directing issue of process and also for impleading Director General of Police and the Chief Minister of the State. The High Court admitted the petition and ordered the issue of process to the respondent but directed deletion of the names of respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Director General of Police and the Chief Minister of the State. The accused filed an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court questioning the proprietory and correctness of the order of the High Court a on deletion of the names of respondents Nos. land 3. It is in this context that the matter was taken up before the Honble Supreme Court and the question was that issuing of process to the newly added respondents before the Revisional Court was correct or not. The Honble Supreme Court held that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the High Court is expected to see as to whether on the a basis of the complaint and the papers filed along-with the complaint the Court below was right in issuing process and it is a proceeding which a deserves to be continued or it could be quashed and in that context, it was held that in the revisional jurisdiction while deciding such matters, the High Court is only expected to see the legality correctness or the propriety of the order, which is an order of issue of process, these things could only be seen by looking into the complaint and the accompanying papers and the evidence if any, which were before the Court below. Therefore, it was found that the High Court was right in deleting the names of the two respondents. This case does not help the petitioner in either way. ( 7 ) THE question before me is that as to what is the scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 401 Cr. P. C. Sub-section (2) of Section 401 lays down that 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 a pleader in his own defence. In the old Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no such requirement like other person being heard. In the old Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no such requirement like other person being heard. This expression was subsequently introduced by way of amendment. ( 8 ) MR. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphasised the words occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 401 i. e. no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other persons unless he has had an opportunity of being heard. Learned Counsel submitted that by this addition it has been provided that not only the accused but other person against whom if any prejudicial order is likely to be passed then such person should also be given an opportunity of being neared. In the present case, complaint was filed by the lady and on the basis of the complaint and after making an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate found that case is not made out and accepted the final report and the Revisional Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction has reversed the finding and remanded the case back to the Magistrate. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner against whom a prejudicial order has been passed i. e. the case has been remanded to the Trial Court for reconsidering the question of issue of process, the petitioner should also have been heard. I thing the submission of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, deserves to be accepted. ( 9 ) IT is true that the learned Magistrate has refused to issue the process. Though at the time of ordering issue of process it is not necessary for the Magistrate to hear the so-called accused as it is all ex-parte proceedings and there is no provision either in Section 200 or 201 or 202 or any provision appearing in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hear the accused before issuing process in a complaint It is all ex-parte proceedings which have to be initiated on the basis of complaint and the evidence or other appended documents which are produced before the Magistrate to issue process or not to issue the process. But when it is found by the Revisional Court that the process has been wrongly denied to the incumbent then at least the Revisional Court by virtue of the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 401 Cr. But when it is found by the Revisional Court that the process has been wrongly denied to the incumbent then at least the Revisional Court by virtue of the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 401 Cr. P. C. should have given a notice because while remanding the case the accused is likely to be prejudiced because the superior Court after review of the material on the record finds the Magistrate has not proceeded correctly that is bound to affect the accused as there exists an order in favour of the so called accused though the same was passed without hearing him. ( 10 ) MR. Kharlia learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no provision for hearing the petitioner before issuing the process. There are ex-parte proceedings and the same are set aside then there is no need to hear the accused. True Section 200 onwards occurring in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure the whole process is of ex-parte nature without calling the so-called accused to be heard in the matter because it is for the Magistrate to examine whether it is a fit for issuing process and after the process is issued the accused has always had no opportunity of answering to those allegations. But the very fact that the Legislature has enacted Subsection (2) of Section 401 Cr. P. C. with the intention that not only that the accused who is likely to be prejudiced should be heard but any other person should also be heard in the matter. The idea behind it is that perhaps the Legislature thought it to give it an extended meaning and, therefore, both these expressions have been used i. e. no order to the prejudice of the accused or any other person shall be made unless he has had an opportunity of being heard. Once the exparte order of not issuing the process exists in favour of the so called accused though he was not heard but the same is sought to be reversed. That will definitely operate to the prejudice of the accused and that for advancement of the cause of justice if notice is given to the accused and if he is heard then that will advance the cause of justice. This will be more in consonance with the principles of natural justice. ( 11 ) MR. That will definitely operate to the prejudice of the accused and that for advancement of the cause of justice if notice is given to the accused and if he is heard then that will advance the cause of justice. This will be more in consonance with the principles of natural justice. ( 11 ) MR. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to R. P. Sablok v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, and Han Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. . In both these cases a similar view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as by this Court respectively. ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter I think that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside and this case is remanded back to him to hear the petitioner and the other side and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the result, this petition is allowed, as indicated above.