IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.218 of 2009 1. PRAKASH BURNWAL 2. KANCHAN BURNWAL Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Circle Officer, Madanpur, District-Aurangabad ----------- For the Petitioners : M/S Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate Ajay For the State : Mr. R.C.P. Bharti 5/ 03/09/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were made accused in Madanpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 1996 dated 13.9.1996 under Sections 353/34 of the Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted on 11.12.1996. The trial commenced and the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341 and 353 I.P.C. by judgment and order dated 15.10.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 103/01-114/07, which has now been dismissed by order dated 13.5.2008 of the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IV, Aurangabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes short submission from Section 384 of the Code of criminal Procedure that the order disposing appeal without hearing the appellant and behind his back is contrary to the statutory mandate. The petitioners have not been heard. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners 2 were heard. The judgment of the appellate court is appended at Annexure-4. In the cause title, where the name of the counsel is mentioned, it is stated that none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Even otherwise, in the body of the judgment, there is no discussion of the presence of the counsel for the appellants and any consideration of the submissions that may have been made in that behalf. Despite stating in the cause title that none appeared on behalf of the appellant, the body of the judgment does not contain any discussion that any counsel was present on behalf of the appellant. Quite apart from the statutory compulsion of Section 384 Cr.P.C., it is the trite law that principles of natural justice shall apply with equal force to the Courts’ proceedings also. The judgment dated 13.5.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2001/114 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. –IV, Aurangabad is, therefore, not sustainable. It is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for disposal afresh after hearing counsel for the petitioners and the State in accordance with law. This writ application is, thus, disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)