Judgment: Oral Judgment: The applicants and their Advocate is absent. Heard Shri A.S.Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. By this Revision Application, the revision-applicants are challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2003 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Criminal Appeal No.33/1997, confirming the conviction recorded against the Revision-applicants (original accused Nos. 2 to 4) in Regular Criminal Case No.97/1994, which was decided by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Mul, on 27.6.1997. The Appellate Court had confirmed the conviction u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of revision-applicants/original accused nos. 2 to 4 - and sentenced them to suffer RI for one year with fine, in a sum of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one each, for offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, with the assistance of learned APP. 4. It does appear that there was direct evidence of an eye witness as against revision applicants which is referred to in para nos. 16 and 17 to the impugned judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court. Injured witness (PW 2) specifically deposed about the altercation, which he had with Vinod Todewar (revision applicant no.2) on the pretext of returning the engine of Luna and a bicycle. The evidence that Revision applicant-Suresh Rambhau Todewar (original accused no.2) was having a bicycle chain in his hand and other accused had sticks in their hands and they had assaulted, consequently, the said prosecution witness Vinod sustained injuries on his hands. The Appellate Court observed that the evidence of injured witness-Vinod in the case remained unshattered in the cross-examination. Further, it is observed that Kishor (PW 3) also corroborated the version of Vinod (PW 2) regarding the incident of assault on the head of Kishor; while other accused were beating his brother. Considering the direct evidence of injured witness, which appears to have to been corroborated on material particulars, it cannot be said that miscarriage of justice has resulted from the impugned judgment and order, by maintaining conviction against the revision applicants. 5. At the cost of repetition, I have to say that revision applicants as well as their Advocates are absent at the time of hearing of this Revision. 6. 5. At the cost of repetition, I have to say that revision applicants as well as their Advocates are absent at the time of hearing of this Revision. 6. In my opinion, in view of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, at the hearing of Revision, no party can claim right to be either personally heard or by a Pleader before any Court exercising the powers of revision as it is option of the Court to hear parties. 7. After hearing the learned APP, I do not find it appropriate to wait indefinitely till Revision applicants appear through their Advocates, that too at their convenience, particularly when no application has been filed before this Court for adjournment of hearing nor any adjournment has been sought by any oral request.