( 2025:JHHC:32175 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2377 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2377 of 2018 ------ Raj Kumar Singh aged about 66 years, S/o Narasingh Narayan Singh resident of village Punadih, P.O. & P.S.-Didarganj, District-Patna, Bihar, at present at Sumit Bhawan Nagratoli, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raju Lal Sharma S/o Late Anarudh Sharma, resident of Mahalla Hesal, (Near Old Gas Godown), Devi Mandap Road, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.08.2015 in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi whereby and where under, the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Misc. Case No.11 of 2002 has been set aside ( 2025:JHHC:32175 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2377 of 2018 without notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, drawing attention of this Court to the entire order sheet of the said Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009 that though, vide order dated 02.12.2009, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi directed office to issue notice to the opposite party no.2, but notice was never served upon the opposite party no.2 of the said criminal revision and without service of notice upon the opposite party no.2 or without holding that the service of notice is sufficient upon the opposite party no.2 and thereby depriving the petitioner the opportunity of being heard, behind the back of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which is not sustainable in law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 do not dispute the facts that notice was never served upon the opposite party no.2 of the said criminal revision, who is the petitioner herein. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.N. Santhanam vs. K. Elangovan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 321 paragraph-5 of which reads as under:- ( 2025:JHHC:32175 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2377 of 2018 “5. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with the High Court's power of revision reads as under: “401.High Court's powers of revision.—(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.” A plain reading of sub-section (2) of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot pass any order which may cause prejudice to the accused or other persons unless he has an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence”. (Emphasis supplied) has in no uncertain manner held that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot pass any order which may cause prejudice to the accused person or any other person unless such person has an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. It is a settled principle of law that, the same principle has been applicable to the learned Sessions Judge; as the learned Sessions Judge exercises the same power as High Court under Section 401(1) of Cr.P.C. ( 2025:JHHC:32175 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2377 of 2018 by virtue of Section 399(2) of the Cr.P.C., thus, a Sessions Judge also cannot exercise the revisional power to pass order; which caused prejudice to the accused or other persons, unless he has an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader, in his own defence. 6. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi has issued notice to the petitioner herein who was the opposite party no.2 of the said criminal revision, but the undisputed facts remains that the notice was never served upon the opposite party no.2, so in the absence of any valid service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi ought not have passed any order, which caused prejudice to the petitioner. As the order of the learned Executive Magistrate was in his favour, which has been set aside by the Revisional Court, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 26.08.2015 in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi is not sustainable in law, hence, the same is quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.2015 in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside. 8. The Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009 is remitted to the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi or its successor court with the direction to pass a fresh order, after giving opportunity of being ( 2025:JHHC:32175 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2377 of 2018 heard to the petitioner, who is the opposite party no.2 of the said criminal revision. 9. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are directed to appear before the court concerned on 12.11.2025 to take further instruction in respect of the Criminal Revision No.128 of 2009. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of October, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 29/10/2025