My lawyer has filed criminal review appeal under section 397 against the order passed in non-cognizable offence filed against me by magistrate. But while filing the appeal he has only added state government - police as the respondent in the appeal and now sessions judge has directed to add names of the complainants in the appeal . Kindly let me know under which provision these names of complainants and amendment can be added to the appeal . Thank you regards.
The orders by the sessions judge itself is an authority to add the names of the defacto complainant as another respondent in the review petition.
If the revision petition has been returned then the necessary amendments may be carried out and represented.
1.The sessions court is right.
2.Since the complainant would be affected by the order passed in Revision,there presence of necessary for natural justice.
3. Add the complainants in the revision. otherwise your revision will be dismissed.
But court has asked to follow the provision in law for adding this amendment to original cri.rev.appl . So under which provision or section this amendment can be done ? as court has not given any written order but told verbally in the court to add the names of the complainants as respondent in the appeal and submit the amendment. Provide if any case law available for this as supporting.
There is no express provision for amendment of petition of complaint.
However for making these types of changes the supreme court allows the court to make amendment for addition of aprties.
Spo refer the supreme court decisison and apply for the addition of names.
If there is no provision in law for making an amendment in the criminal revision, you ,may withdraw the petition as not pressed with leave of court to file a fresh petition on the same grounds for the reasons which the petitioner wanted to do it.
1) The names of complainant have been directed to be added by court to secure ends of justice
2)Under section 397 of crpc sessions court may call for records of the proceedings before lower court for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence
3)the court after hearing the compliainant , the appellant would pass orders in interests of justice
Section 397 states that the High Court or any Sessions Judge can call for and examine record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. The powers, which can be exercised by the revisionary authority, are stated. Section 399(2) states that when any proceedings by way of revision are commenced by the Sessions Judge, sub- section (2) to Section 401 and sub-sections (3) to (5) will apply. Sub- section (2) to Section 401 in clear and categorical term states that no order shall be passed or made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. The important words being “no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard”. It incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem. The language is couched in mandatory form. The word ‘shall’ is a clear pointer that the revisionary authority has no discretion but has to hear the accused or such other person. The only requirement is that the order should be to the prejudice to the said person or accused.
“15. In Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan [(1981) 1 SCC 62 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 111] this Court opined that the principle of audi alteram partem is applicable in a proceeding before the High Court.
16. Yet again, in P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar [(2004) 13 SCC 472 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 345] this Court held: (SCC pp. 472-73, paras 4-5)
“4. On the above basis, it proceeded to consider the material produced by the petitioner before it and without taking into consideration the defence that was available to the respondent proceeded to set aside the order of the Magistrate, and directed the said court to take the complaint on file and proceed with the same in accordance with law.
5. In our opinion, this order of the High Court is ex facie unsustainable in law by not giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to defend his case that the learned Judge violated all principles of natural justice as also the requirement of law of hearing a party before passing an adverse order.”