JUDGMENT 1. - The instant Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Additinal Sessions Judge, kimerpur in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2011 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, while entertaining an appeal against the acquittal, preferred by the complainant reversed the judgment dated 20.6.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sumerpur, District Pali in Regular Criminal Case No. 180/2001 and directed for retrial against the petitioner after adding the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. The learned Trial Court by its judgment dated 20.6.2011, acquitted the petitioner from the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The complainant, preferred an appeal which came to be allowed as stated above. 2. Challenge is made to the Appellant Court's order having been passed in disregard of the principle of natural justice without an opportunity of hearing being granted the petitioner-accused. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of appeal which was issued by the learned Appellate Court was never served on the Petitioner. The Appellate Court wrongly treated the service to have been effected on the appellant for the date 21.7.2012. He drew the Court's attention to the report on the summons issued by the Appellate Court for the date of learning i.e. 21.7.2012 wherein it is mentioned that the serving official went to lie petitioner's house for effecting the service but the house was found locked, lie serving official already talked to the petitioner's father on his mobile number who replied that the petitioner was serving somewhere towards Surat ad he was not aware of his whereabouts. The learned Counsel submits that the appellate Court while passing the order dated 18.10.2013 recorded that the common was served on the petitioner's father whereas the facts remains that lie summon was neither served on the appellant or his father. Thus, he prays tat the order passed by the learned Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision of the appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the complainant is not in a position to dispute tat the service of the notice of appeal was not effected on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned Counsel for the complainant is not in a position to dispute tat the service of the notice of appeal was not effected on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in the petitioner's favour without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The order sated 18.10.2013 is evidently bad in the eye of law for this reason cannot be i.stained. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The natter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to decided the appeal afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and without being prejudiced by any of observations recorded in the order dated 18.10.2013. 5. The parties shall remain present before the Appellate Court on 20.1.2015. Thereafter the appeal shall be heard and decided as per law. 6. Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. The Revision Petition is owed in the above terms. Stay Application is dismissed.Revision allowed. *******