JUDGMENT : 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioneroriginal complainant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10th October, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad below Exhibit7 in Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2014, by which the Revisional Court rejected the application, Exhibit7, filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under: (a) It appears that the petitioner herein filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) against two persons named in the complaint, of the offence punishable under Sections 181, 191, 193, 196, 199, 406, 409, 420, 120B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) It appears that after verification of the complaint through the complainant, on oath, the learned Magistrate thought fit to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide his order dated 30th June, 2014. (c) The complainant, being dissatisfied, with the order passed by the learned 6th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), dismissing his complaint under Section 203 of the Code, challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2014 under Section 401 of the Code, read with Section 397 of the Code. In the Criminal Revision Application, opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are the persons named in the original complaint and opponent No.3 is the State of Gujarat. On such Revision Application being filed in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the learned Judge issued a formal notice upon the respondent No.3, the State of Gujarat, whereas no notice was ordered to be issued so far as the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. 3. In such circumstances, the complainant filed an application Exhibit7, praying that notice be issued against the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, as they were named in the original complaint, and against whom allegations were levelled of having committed the offence. 4. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10th October, 2014, rejected the application Exhibit7 filed by the complainant. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court below, the petitioner has come up with this application. 6. Mr. 4. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10th October, 2014, rejected the application Exhibit7 filed by the complainant. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court below, the petitioner has come up with this application. 6. Mr. B.T. Rao, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Judge committed serious error in rejecting the application, Exhibit7 filed by his client, praying for issue of notice to the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, named in the Criminal Revision Application. Mr. Rao submits that without issuing notice to the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, it is not permissible for the Revisional Court to hear the Revision Application. His main bone of contention is that ultimately, if the Revision Application is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Court of the learned Magistrate for further inquiry or the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself takes cognizance upon the complaint and directs the learned Magistrate to issue process, then in such circumstances, such order, although in favour of the complainant, would become vulnerable in view of the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Mr. Rao submits that clause (2) of Section 401 of the Code makes it very clear that no order 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. 8. The anxiety on the part of Mr. Rao the learned advocate is, that even after succeeding before the learned Sessions Judge, his client would not gain anything as the persons named in the complaint would immediately challenge such order before the higher forum and relying upon the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code the higher forum ultimately would be left with no other option but to quash and set aside such order passed by the Revisional Court. 9. Mr. Rao submits that it would be nothing but a waste of judicial time. Mr. Rao submits that in the first instance itself the Revisional Court should have issued notice to the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, and after a biparte hearing, the Revisional Court can take an appropriate decision in the matter. 10. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel has further submitted that the practice prevailing in the Sessions Court is well known. Mr. Rao submits that in the first instance itself the Revisional Court should have issued notice to the opponents Nos. 1 and 2, and after a biparte hearing, the Revisional Court can take an appropriate decision in the matter. 10. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel has further submitted that the practice prevailing in the Sessions Court is well known. According to Mr. Rao no sooner the revision application is filed, than the Court would immediately, issue notice to the opponents and after hearing all the parties, would decide the revision application one way or the other. According to Mr. Rao, there was no reason for the learned Judge to depart from such normal practice. 11. In support of his submission Mr. Rao has placed reliance on the following decision: (i) Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another Vs. Sailesh M.Patel, 2012(10) SCC 517 . (ii) Unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Manohar Jalan Vs. Sunil Paswan and another in Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2014, decided on 30th June, 2014. (iii) Mohit @ Sonu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 2248 . 12. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3the State of Gujarat. 13. Mr. Trivedi, the learned Advocate General submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Judge in rejecting the application Exhibit7 filed by the complainant. Mr. Trivedi submits that Section 401(2) protects the interest of the proposed accused or any other person in certain contingencies. The complainant need not worry about the interest of the proposed accused. According to Mr. Trivedi, the Revisional Court may even reject the revision application summarily without issuing notice to the opponents, if he is of the opinion that no case is made out by the revisionist. 14. Mr. Trivedi submits that ultimately, it is for the concerned Court to ensure that the provisions of Section 401(2) are complied with. 15. Mr. According to Mr. Trivedi, the Revisional Court may even reject the revision application summarily without issuing notice to the opponents, if he is of the opinion that no case is made out by the revisionist. 14. Mr. Trivedi submits that ultimately, it is for the concerned Court to ensure that the provisions of Section 401(2) are complied with. 15. Mr. Trivedi submits that there is no provision of law in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or even as a general proposition of law, on the basis of which the revisionist in his capacity as the original complainant can pray before the Revisional Court as a matter of right to issue notice to the opponents named in the revision application. 16. In such circumstances, Mr. Trivedi prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration in this petition is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed any error in passing the impugned order. 18. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, I deem it necessary to look into the few relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the case law cited before me. 19. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court or any Sessions Court to call for the records of any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court, for the purpose of examining legality and validity of any order passed by such inferior Criminal Court. “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation: All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this subsection and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them”. 20. Section 398 of the Code confers power upon the High Court including the Sessions Judge to order inquiry after examining any record called for under Section 397 or otherwise. 398. Power to order inquiry – On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or subsection (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged : Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” 21. Section 399 is with regard to the Sessions Judge's powers of revision. It reads thus: 399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under subsection (1) of section 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub section (1), the provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said subsections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub section (1), the provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said subsections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.” 22. Section 400 confers power upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge to exercise power of Sessions Judge under Chapter XXX. 23. Section 401 is with regard to the High Court's powers of revision. It 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 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 its 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. (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.” 24. Subsection (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. 25. Section 397 says that the Sessions Judge, while exercising the revisional power, may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Section 401. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising the revisional power, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, is obliged to give an opportunity of hearing to the opponents named in the revision application, more particularly, when no cognizance was taken against them by the trial Court, and if the revision application is ultimately allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, then the order, although in favour of the complainant, would remain vulnerable for noncompliance of the subsection (2) of Section 401 of the Code. 26. The question before me is with regard to the scope of the Subsection (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. Subsection (2) of Section 401 lays down that no order under Section 401 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. This expression was subsequently introduced by way of amendment. 27. 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. 27. It is true that the learned Magistrate has refused to issue the process. At the time of ordering issue of process it is not necessary for the Magistrate to hear the socalled accused as it is all exparte 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 exparte proceedings which have to be initiated on the basis of a 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 wrongfully denied to the incumbent, then at least the Revisional Court, by virtue of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure will have to give a notice to the proposed accused, because while remanding the case, the proposed accused is likely to be prejudiced, if the superior Court after review of the materials on record, finds that the Magistrate had not proceeded correctly and that is bound to affect the proposed accused, as there exists an order in favour of the so called accused, though the same was passed without hearing him. 28. From Section 200 onwards occurring in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure the whole process is of exparte nature without calling the socalled accused to be heard in the matter because it is for the Magistrate to examine whether it is a fit case for issuing process and after the process is issued the accused has always the opportunity of answering to those allegations. The Legislature has enacted Sub section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. with the intention that not only the accused who is likely to be prejudiced should be heard but any other person should also be heard in the matter. The Legislature has enacted Sub section (2) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. with the intention that not only 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 socalled accused though he was not heard but the same is sought to be reversed then it 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 proposition is more in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 29. The Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another Vs. Sailesh M.Patel and others 2012 (10) SCC 517 has very succinctly explained the position of law. 30. I may quote with profit paragraphs Nos. 46, 48 and 53: “46. The legal position is fairly wellsettled that in the proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued agaist him or not. As a matter of law, up to the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by himself is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the prupose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings. If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204, yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of the power of the Revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.” “48. In the case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the Police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of subsection (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 – although it is at preliminary stage – nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other person” under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in t his view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is preprocess stage or post process stage.” “53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P.sUNDERRAJAN, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha and A.N. Santhanam. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, were the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled”. 31. Thus, so far as the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code is concerned, there need not be any debate on this issue. However, the moot question that falls for my consideration is whether the complainant can as a matter of right assert before the Revisional Court for issue of notice to the accused/suspect arraigned in the complaint. 32. I may only say that it is for the Revisional Court to ensure due compliance of the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code. I am sure, that the learned Judge, who is to hear the Revision Application, filed by the complainant, is not oblivious of the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code. It is possible that after a preliminary hearing, the Revisional Court may decide to reject the Revision Application summarily. 33. In such circumstances, there would not be any occasion to comply with the provisions of Section 401(2) of the Code. I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Rao, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein that the Revisional Court has no power to reject the Revision Application summarily. There may be a long standing practice prevailing in the Courts below of issuing notice to the other side immediately on a Revision Application being filed but there is nothing in law which would come in the way of the Revisional Court in rejecting the Revision Application in limine. 34. On the other hand, it is also possible that after a preliminary hearing, if, the Revisional Court finds some substance in the case of the revisionist, then probably, at that stage, the Revisional Court may have to invoke the provisions of Section 401 (2) of the Code and issue notice to the other side. 35. 34. On the other hand, it is also possible that after a preliminary hearing, if, the Revisional Court finds some substance in the case of the revisionist, then probably, at that stage, the Revisional Court may have to invoke the provisions of Section 401 (2) of the Code and issue notice to the other side. 35. It cannot however be gainsaid that revisional powers are not appellate powers. The Court exercising revisional powers will do so in order to do justice between the parties and not to do injustice, between the parties even if the order sought to be revised is not in confirmity with law. The distinction between the appellate powers and the revisional powers is succinctly brought out in the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Emperor v. Jafar Khan, reported in (36) 1935 Cr.LJ 907. It has been held therein : "It is very important and would save much waste of the time of the Courts if it was thoroughly realised that there is a distinction between a revision and an appeal. In the latter the appellant is given a statutory right to demand an adjudication from the Court either on a question of fact or on a question of law or upon both. When a matter comes upon revisional jurisdiction the applicant has no rights whatsoever beyond the right of bringing his case to the notice of the Court. It is for the Court to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some real and substantial injustice has been done. That is the main point which the Court has to consider. A revisional application is not to be regarded as in some sort a second appeal on a question of law." 36. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Court. I am sure that while disposing of the Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2014, the learned Judge would keep in mind the provisions of Section 401 (2) of the Code. 37. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby rejected. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merit of the matter. The Revision Application shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.