( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th February, 1996 passed by Mr. R. K. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent herein under sections 323/452 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which led to the present revision petition are as under : that on Mst. Noor Nisha Begum Filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, P. S. Lahori Gate under sections 452/448/506/463/465/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after the appraisal of the evidence led by the complaint came to the conclusion that the alleged incident never took place and the complaint itself was a Figment of the imagination of the complainant. He was-further of the view that the complaint was Filed in order to bring pressure on the respondents. Hence the said complaint was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28th October, 1995.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order the complainant i. e. the respondent herein approached the court of Session by way of revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment and order allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned M. M. He further directed the learned M. M. to summon the petitioners herein i. e. respondents 1 to 7 under sections 323/452 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Mr. Dhingra has contended that admittedly the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order i. e. the impugned order with out even hearing the petitioner. Thus according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is illegal and invalid as no order can be passed against a person unless he is given a proper hearing. This is the settled position of law in view of the provisions of section 401 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principles of natural justice also require that a man should be heard before an adverse order is passed against him.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has urged to the contrary.

( 7 ) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present revision petition is hopelessly barred by time. Hence it is liable to be flung to the winds on this short ground alone. The next limb of argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the complaint was dismissed and the petitioners were never summoned by the Magistrate, hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision petition against the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was under no obligation to call them and to hear them, Therefore according to him, there is no illegality and invalidity in the course adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have very carefully examined the facts of the present case and have given my anxious thought thereto.

( 9 ) SECTION 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the powers of revisions of a court of Sessions. Hence the provisions of the said section can be adverted to with profit. It is in the following words. "in he case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 401. Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (l), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. "

( 10 ) IT is crystal cl