IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1463 of 2008 UMESH SINGH @ PATHAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S Abdul Mannan Khan,Adv., Md. Najmul Hoda,Adv. Anamul Haque,Adv. For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, A.P.P. ------- 2. 15.12.2008. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22nd October,2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Appeal No.57 of 2006 thereby judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Rajendra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in G.R. No.2393 of 1991, Trial No.399 of 2006 has been affirmed. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 25(1)b and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years under section 25(1)b and six months under section 26 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order itself would go to show that appeal has been - 2 - disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge without hearing the petitioner. Hearing of the petitioner/appellant in a criminal matter is essential for which he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 S.C.1500. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is sketchy. The court below has not dealt with the evidence. The appeal has been disposed of without any discussion of the prosecution or defence evidence. In other words, the court below has disposed of this appeal without any application of judicial mind. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite correct. The appeal has been disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge without hearing the appellant. The order is also sketchy. The court below has not properly applied his judicial mind and has decided the appeal in a very casual manner, which is not expected from Senior Judicial Officer like Sessions - 3 - Judge. So far the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the apex court has clearly held that in criminal matters the convicts must be heard. If the lawyer does not turn up on the date of hearing, it is the duty of the court concerned to engage a counsel to argue on his behalf. The appeal against the conviction should not be disposed of or dismissed without hearing the appellant. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside at admission stage and the matter is remanded back to the court below for fresh disposal after hearing of the counsel for the appellant in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. The matter must be decided within two months of receipt of this order. In the meantime, the petitioner, namely, Umesh Singh @ Pathal Singh is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to - 4 - N.H./ the satisfaction of Sri Rajendra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in T.R. No.399 of 2006 as the petitioner was earlier on bail. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax on cost being deposited by the petitioner. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )