Key Points: - The accused/suspect has a right to be heard in revision petitions challenging Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203, when such revision is filed by the complainant before the High Court or Sessions Judge. (!) - Section 401(2) requires that no order be prejudicial to the accused or other person unless they have had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence. This applies to revisions affecting rights despite whether process has issued. (!) (!) (!) - Taking cognizance is a broader concept than issuance of process; the CJM’s cognizance can occur at pre- or post-cognizance stages, and the right to hearing in revision pertains to orders that affect the accused, including those at pre- or post-cognizance stages depending on prejudice. (!) (!) (!) - There is a distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages in revision rights, with proper hearing mandated when the revision could prejudice the accused or other persons. (!) (!) (!) - The expression "other person" in Section 401(2) includes suspects or persons alleged in the complaint who may be implicated, even prior to issuance of process. (!) - The right to hearing encompasses defense of the order being challenged in revision (in his own defence) and is not limited to formally accused persons only after process. (!)

How to determine whether a suspect or accused has a right to be heard in a revision challenging a Magistrate’s dismissal of a complaint under Section 203?

What are the rights of an accused or other person to be heard under Section 401(2) of the Code in revisions challenging pre- or post-cognizance orders?

What is the scope of cognizance and the point at which an accused may be heard in revision proceedings, particularly in relation to pre-process vs post-process stages?