- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S Satyanarayan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant challenged an order dated 20 March 1973 issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. That order arose out of a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Elura, under Sections 435 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference recommended that the High Court revise and set aside an order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Elura (Crl M.P. No. 163 of 1971) which had refused to direct the respondent to hand over the records, accounts, properties, and cash of the “Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pragadavaram” to the petitioner.
When the High Court accepted the reference, it did so without issuing notice of the hearing date to the respondent or his counsel. A note later appended to the High Court’s order acknowledged that the matter was disposed of without hearing the respondent because his counsel’s name was absent from the cause list; the judge nonetheless concluded that a respondent in revision is “not entitled to be heard as of right.”
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could decide a criminal revision reference without giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard, consistent with the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s view—namely, that a respondent in revision is not entitled to a hearing as of right—was “manifestly contrary” to the audi alteram partem rule, an essential component of natural justice. Because this principle applies to proceedings before the High Court, failure to hear the respondent constituted sufficient grounds to invalidate the High Court’s decision. The Court confined its analysis to this procedural defect, finding it unnecessary to address substantive issues.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter, directing the High Court to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 411 of 1972 within two months of receiving the order, after hearing both parties.
Implications: The decision reinforces the mandatory application of the audi alteram partem rule in criminal revision proceedings, underscoring that even in cases where statutory provisions are silent, natural justice requires that affected parties be given an opportunity to be heard. No new substantive precedent was created, but the ruling invalidates the High Court’s order and restores the parties’ right to a fair hearing.
R.S Sarkaria, J.— This appeal is directed against an order dated March 20, 1973 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby it accepted a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Elura under Section 435 read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the order of Additional First Class Magistrate, Elura in Crl MP No. 163 of 1971 refusing to give direction to the respondent to hand over all the records, accounts, properties, cash etc. of Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pragadavaram, to the petitioner, be set aside and revised. It appears from the impugned order that no notice of the date of hearing was issued to the respondent or his counsel. A note appears to have been added to the impugned order later which reads as follows:
“It is true that the case has been disposed of without hearing the counsel for the respondent as he could not appear at the time of the hearing because his name was not printed in the cause list. But this is a revision case where the respondent is not entitled to be heard as of right. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not think any review of the order already passed is necessary.”
2. This view taken by the High Court is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice which was applicable to the proceedings before the High Court. On this short ground we think that the order of the High Court does not deserve to be maintained. Accordingly, we set aside that order and send the case back to the High Court with the direction that it should dispose of Crl R. No. 411 of 1972 within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing both the parties.
3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above order.
Alert