JUDGMENT 1. - These miscellaneous petitions have been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated 1.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dataramgarh, District Sikar whereby accused Shyaln Sunder was acquitted but the Court had directed to take appropriate action against the present petitioners. 2. As the controversy is limited, which is not directly connected with the facts of the case, therefore, there is no need to narrate the facts of the case. 3. The only contention of the present petitioners is that while acquitting accused Shyam Sunder for the offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, it has been held by the trial Court that the present petitioners are also guilty of misappropriating the public money. It has also been held by the trial Court that the money has been handed over to Public Prosecutor Rajnarayan vide an authority letter by Shyam Sunder and authority letter was signed by Akshay and hence they both are guilty of misappropriate but before passing adverse order against them, no opportunity of hearing was given to them and reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of State of W.B. & Ors. v. Babu Chakraborthy, (2004) 12 SCC 201 , Mool Chand Singh Rana v. State of Raj., 2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 793 , Kalyan Mal Sharma v. The Special Judge & Ors., 2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 325 , Raghuveer Singh & Anr. v. State, 2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 284 and Pradeep Kumar Vyas v. District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jairpur & Anr., 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 186. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has also not objected regarding the legal position of the fact that before passing an adverse order against the present petitioners, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to them. 5. It is not in dispute that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, whether he is a party or to the proceeding or not, he must have been given an opportunity to present his contention and hence in the present case, adverse order of the nature that the present petitioners are guilty of misappropriation has been passed against them without giving them opportunity of hearing, which is against the Principles of Natural Justice and liable to be quashed. 6. 6. Looking at the above, these miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 1.5.2003 whereby the petitioners have been held guilty of offence of misappropriation and direction given to the State Government to initiate appropriate proceedings against them is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.4.2012.Petition allowed. *******