SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 419

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri, Appellant
Versus
S. S. Satyanarayan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1974, D/- 18-9-1980.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 435 and 438 - Properties - Hand Over All Records - Appeal is directed against an order of High Court whereby it accepted a reference made by Addl. Sessions Judge, with recommendation that order of Addl. First Class Magistrate, Elura in Crl. M. P. refusing to give direction to respondent to hand over all records, accounts, properties, cash etc. of Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pragadavaram, to petitioner, be set aside and revised – Held, View taken by High Court is manifestly contrary to audi alteram partem rule of natural justice which was applicable to the proceedings before High Court - On this short ground Court think that order of High Court does not deserve to be maintained - Accordingly, Court set aside that order and send case back to High Court with direction that it should dispose of Crl. R. within two months from receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing both parties - Appeal disposed of.

Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal is directed against an order dated 20th March, 1973 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby it accepted a reference made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Elura under S. 435 read with S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the order of Addl. First Class Magistrate, Elura in Crl. M. P. No. 163 of 1971 refusing to give direction to the respondent to hand over all the records, accounts, properties, cash etc. of Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pragadavaram, to the petitioner, be set aside and revised. It appears from the impugned order that no notice of the date of hearing was issued to the respondent or his counsel. A note appears to have been added to the impugned order later which reads as follows:

"It is true that the case has been disposed of without hearing the counsel for the respondent as he could not appear at the time of the hearing because his name was not printed in the cause list. But this is a revision case where the respondent is not entitled to be heard as of right, Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not think any review of the order already passed is necessary.

2. This view taken by the High Court is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice which was applicable to the proceedings before the High Court. On this short ground we think that the order of the High Court does not deserve to be maintained. Accordingly, we set aside that order and send the case back to the High Court with the direction that it should dispose of Crl. R. No. 411 of 1972 within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing both the parties.

3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above order.

Order accordingly,

For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1156

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top