IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1152 of 2009 UPENDRA TANTI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 1.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The commission of theft in the house of the informant was reported to the police followed by recovery of household articles, matter investigated by the I.O. who submitted charge sheet and after cognizance, the case was tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Tr.no. 16/04 (G.R.case no. 737/98) ending in conviction and sentence by order dated 10.2.2004. An appeal was preferred against the said order of conviction and sentence which was affirmed by order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the appellate court i.e. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr.Appeal no. 29/04. In appeal, none turned up to argue the case for appellant, so after hearing a lawyer on request of the Court, the appeal was disposed of affirming the order of conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for revisionist- petitioner and the learned P.P. are of the same - 2 - view that the duty cast upon the appellate court is not performed while deciding this appeal. In an appeal it is for the appellate court to look into the fact as well as the law made applicable in the case to the extent that after taking that independently the view of the appellate court appears apparent to assess reason of its affirming the appeal. None of the witnesses have been discussed at all if can be trusted after testing their cross-examination also. If that is taken by the trial court then also there should be mentioned that such statement of witnesses or evidence or document was doubted on some ground and that is replied by the trial court satisfactorily but that has not been done in the case. It is a simple case of un-reasoned order so it is not liable to remain sustained. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed and both the orders dated 10.2.2004 and 4.5.2009 passed by the courts below in aforesaid case are set aside. The case is sent back to the appellate court that is 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger to decide the same afresh according to - 3 - law giving reasons touching all the aspects in grounds of appeal if any of the parties is there to represent or not. As this petitioner was on bail while the appeal was pending so he (Upendra Tanti) is further ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in the aforesaid case. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI