1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2009 Shivshankar Jatashankar Joshi .. Petitioner versus Jafar Imam & Anr. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2009 Shivshankar Jatashankar Joshi ..Petitioner versus Suresh V. Chaturvedi & Anr. ..Respondents .... Smt.Vasanti Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ram Upadhyay i/by M/s. Law Competent Consultants for respondent no.1. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri - APP for State. .... CORAM:S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED:14th SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Sessions Judge, Bombay, dated 24th October 2008, allowing the revision filed by the respondents- accused to quash and set aside the process issued against them. 2 2 On the petitioner s complaint, process was issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 49th Court, Vikhroli, Mumabi u/s. 420, 409, 477 (a) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was in respect of criminal breach of trust in respect of large number of shares of a public limited company i.e. M/s.SVC Superchem Ltd. 3 The respondents herein, who are Directors of the Company preferred revision applications before the Sessions Court, being Criminal Revision Application Nos. 588 and 589 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the respondents contention and set aside the order of issue of process only on the ground that the complainants have not demonstrated any entrustment of the shares in favour of the respondents and that there appears no representation which alleged to be made by the respondents-accused on the basis of which the applicant-complainant can be said to have parted with the property. That order is in question in these two writ petitions. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is 3 that the Sessions Court committed serious breach of natural justice by proceeding to decide the matters without hearing the complainant. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that the applicants be heard by the Sessions Court. The roznama shows that the Sessions Court issued notice to all the respondents. However, even though, no report of service of the notice was received by the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court proceeded to decide the revision applications and quashed the process. Prima facie, the orders appeared to be vitiated for failure to hear the complainant-applicant. 4 The Sessions Court undoubtedly has powers in deciding the matter without hearing the applicants/complainants. Section 403 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows : Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any court exercising its powers of revision; but the court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader. 4 5 It is true that Section 403 deprives the parties to a criminal revision having any right to be heard either personally or by pleader, but none the less, also confers the discretion on the Court to hear any party either personally or by pleader. In the present case, it is clear from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, that by issuing notice to the respondents, the Sessions Court exercised its discretion to hear the respondents. Having exercised its discretion to hear the respondents, there was no reason why the Sessions Court, ought to have proceeded to decide the matters without hearing the respondents to the revision i.e. the applicant/complainant and quash the process issued on the complainant. This is clearly not a case where the learned Sessions Court intended not to hear the applicant-complainant by virtue of the first part of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court hearing the revision is entitled to decide it without hearing any party, but the Court should decide at the first instance, however, for some reason, the Court has issued notice to the 5 respondents in a revision, it must await the service of the notice and may subsequently for good reason, decline to hear the respondents or revision applicants or petitioners for reasons to be recorded in writing. This must, however, be done for reasons to be recorded in writing. The parties whose respondents/petitioners has been entertained or who has received the notice of hearing is entitled to entertain, should legitimate expectation that he would be heard. That expectation cannot be denied without reason. 6 As observed earlier, in the present case, though the Court decided to issue notice calling upon the respondents to be heard, he issued notice on the revision calling upon the applicant- complainant to be heard, it seems to have suddenly decided not to hear them and proceeded to decide the revision applications and quashed the process without haring the complainant. This was not permissible for the learned Sessions Court to adopt the orders passed in the revisions. 6 7 Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). The Sessions Court shall decide the matters as are remanded back to the Sessions Court for decision in accordance with law. The Sessions Court shall hear the revision applications and dispose of the said revision applications as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date on which the parties shall appear before it . The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 30th September 2009. 8 Record and Proceedings are sent back to Sessions Court. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)