JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 18.1.2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2012, whereby the learned revisional court has set aside the order dated 3.12.2012, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, summoning the present applicants and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel that being aggrieved by the summoning order, the opposite party no.2 preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Balrampur being Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2012, in which the applicants were not impleaded. The learned Sessions Judge also ignoring the provision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuraj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters, reported in (2009)2 SCC 363 , passed the impugned order. 4. It s well settled that when the court passes an order summoning the accused persons, it would be presumed that the court has taken cognizance. After the cognizance, accused is entitled to be heard in a proceeding, as required under Section 401 Cr.P.C. It is admitted that in the criminal revision preferred by the opposite party no.2, the applicants were not impleaded as party. The learned Sessions Judge without giving any opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order setting aside the summoning order and remitting back the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. 5. Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. provides 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. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above, has reiterated the same and also observed that after the cognizance is taken, the accused has a right to be heard in subsequent proceedings. 7. As admittedly the applicants were not impleded as opposite parties in the criminal revision and the revisioanl court also did not give any opportunity of hearing to the applicants, the impugned order dated 18.1.2013 is illegal in view of Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 8. Accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 18.1.2013, passed in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2012 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Judge concerned , who shall restore the criminal revision to its original number and directing the revisioanl court to implead the applicants as opposite parties and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall decide the revision afresh according to law.