THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.NO.213 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioner, who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram, was convicted for an offence under Section.44 of Indian Electricity Act, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.148 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. A charge sheet has been filed against the revision petitioner and another person under Section.44 of the Indian Electricity Act, for pilferage of the electric energy to the slab-quarry and thereby causing huge loss to the department. After trial, accused No.1 was acquitted and accused No.2/revision petitioner was convicted. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused No.2 preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.148 of 2005 and as can be seen from the judgment of the first appellate court, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant. The part of the judgment does not show that any Advocate represented the appellant and the counsel was absent. After going through the grounds of appeal, the learned District Judge has confirmed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the judgment of the first appellate court is legal and sustainable? POINT:- The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that inference drawn by the lower court about the presumption and also the pilferage of theft is not proper and further more he has contended that after establishment of the special court under the Amended Act, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and consequently the conviction is also not valid. According to him, the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing. As can be seen from Sections.385 and 386 Cr.P.C, a notice has to be given to the appellant or his pleader about the date of hearing and at the time of disposal under Sections.385 Cr.P.C it is necessary that either the appellant or his pleader should be heard and without hearing both of them, the appellate court cannot go through the contents of the grounds of appeal and decide the same. The judgment of the lower appellate court does not show that the appellant was heard with regard to any of the contentions raised by him. Apart from it, it is now fairly well settled that in case when an Advocate representing the appellant or the accused person is absent, it is the duty of the court to appoint an Advocate by extending the legal aid and thereafter to hear the matter and decide. In this case, evidently, the approach adopted by the lower court is against the mandate of Sections 385 or 386 Cr.P.C. and consequently the judgment in Crl.A.No.148 of 2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur for fresh disposal after hearing the counsel for the appellant if any and if not by appointing a legal aid counsel and then consider the grounds of appeal. The lower court shall dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 28-11-2011 TSNR