Cr.R.No.1222 of 2011 13.12.2011. Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri L.L.Sharma, Govt.Advocate for respondent-State. With consent arguments heard on merits. In this case, the conviction of the petitioner is based upon memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding disclosure of the stolen articles, which have not been identified by the complainant through identification proceedings. According to the petitioner, he was taken into custody 12 days before his arrest and he was kept in the police station and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is also fabricated. He also submits that he had been making complaints with regard to his illegal arrest and detention by the police to the Authorities. In this regard, he also filed application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence before the Additional Sessions Judge for the first time. There is mention of filing of such application in paragraph 6 of the appellate Court judgment. However, the application has not been disposed of in the appellate Court judgment on merits. In these circumstances, while setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court, the case is remanded back for consideration of the application moved by the petitioner under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and to pass an appropriate orders thereupon. The appeal filed by the appellant shall be decided only after the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is decided. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the meanwhile on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge. With this observation, the revision petition is disposed of. C.C.as per rules. ( M. C. GARG ) JUDGE RJ/