IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3932 OF 2007 C.R.Nanavati ...... ......Applicant. V/s M/s.CFL Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. .....Respondents. Mr.Himanshu Mehta and K.S.Kalappura, Adv. For the applicant. Mr.V.B.Pandey, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 21/2/08 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. An order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.8.07 allowing the revision filed by the present respondent has been questioned by filing the present application. The complaint has been filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 141. The trial Court refused to issue process against the present applicant and hence an application was moved by the complainant at Ex.15 seeking impledment of the present applicant as accused in the complaint. Said application came to be rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 29.8.07. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant filed revision before the Sessions Court without impleding the present applicant as party respondent. The Sessions Judge dealing with revision decided the revision in 1 favour of the present respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing to the present applicant. The record reveals that the present applicant was not even impleded as party respondent in the revision. Thus it is an admitted position that the impugned order under challenge passed by Sessions Judge has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice and also in violation of provisions of sub-section (2)of section 401 which is very much attracted while deciding the revision by having recourse to section 399. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from his client concedes that no order prejudicial to an accused or other person can be passed unless he is granted opportunity of being heard. In view of this concession present application deserves to be allowed. Application is thus allowed. Impugned order passed by Sessions Judge in revision application No.888/07 dated 29.8.07 is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to the Sessions Judge for decision on merit afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the present applicant. The respondent shall impled the present applicant as party respondent formally before the revisional court by amending the memo of revision. Both the learned advocates submit that their client would appear or cause appearance through their respective advocates before the Sessions Court on 17.3.08 and thus submission is that fresh notices from the Sessions Court be dispensed with. In the result as the parties undertake to appear before the Sessions Court on 17.3.08 fresh notices stand dispensed with. Rule made absolute in above terms. 21.2.08 2