ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. A COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 IPC BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UDUMALPET, CAME TO BE DISMISSED BY THE SAID COURT. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF HIS COMPLAINT, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FILED A REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE IT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT EVEN WHEN IT DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. IN THIS REGARD, THIS IS WHAT THE COURT OBSERVED:

"THE COURT IS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO NOTICE IS NECESSARY TO THE RESPONDENT AS THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS WOULD SUFFICE TO GIVE A DISPOSAL TO THIS REVISION AND IN ORDER TO AVOID THE AVOIDABLE DELAY."

4. ON THE ABOVE BASIS, IT PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IT AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DEFENCE THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE RESPONDENT PROCEEDED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 9 MAGISTRATE, AND DIRECTED THE SAID COURT TO TAKE THE COMPLAINT ON FILE AND PROCEED WITH THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

5. IN OUR OPINION, THIS ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IS EX FACIE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO DEFEND HIS CASE THAT THE LEARNED JUDGE VIOLATED ALL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS ALSO THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW OF HEARING A PARTY BEFORE PASSING AN ADVERSE ORDER.

6. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, NO HESITATION IN ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE HIGH COURT TO ISSUE PROPER NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN WHO IS THE RESPONDENT IN THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BEFORE IT AND AFFORD HIM A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED.