%%}-¥F?/& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Hon‘ble Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivasmva, J Crimina! Misc Peti‘fion No.06 of 2006 Pe‘rifioner: Rama Shankar Singh, s/o. Lalman Singh, aged abou‘r 32 year-s, occupafion— Agriculfure, r/o. village-Bar'odhi, Police Chowki-Bha'fgaon, ‘ES Pmmppur, Dist Sarguja (CG) a? Vs Respondenf : Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh 1; ‘rhr‘ough Disfr'ic‘r Magisfmfe, Sarguja (C6) PRESENT: Shm Shrawan Kumar Agrawal counsel for The pe’rmoner 5hr! Arun Sao Addmonal Public Prosecu'for wrrh 5hr! Sudhlr BaJpm Dy 6A for fhe S‘m‘re ORDER Passed" on 31” August 2006) ( This pe‘rifion under Secfion 482 of fhe Cr.P.C. has been filed by fhe pel'i‘l'ioner challenging The validi‘l‘y 0f judgmenf da'red 20/11/2000 passed by Addifional Sessions Judge, Sumjpur in Criminal Appeal No.69/91, sus'l'aining The judgmenf of convicTion and order of sen‘rence passed by Judicial Magis‘rra’re 15+ Class, Surajpur. 2) \ l Fac‘rual maTrix of fhe case, in brief, is Thai Judicial Magis‘rrafe Firs? Class, Surajpur in Criminal Case No. 791/88 passed judgmeni' of convicfion and order of sen‘rence on 27.02.1991 whereby holding pefi'l'ioner guilty for commif‘l’ing offences punishable under Sec‘rions 452 and 332 of 2 fhe IPC, senfenced him To undergo RI for Two years on each coun‘r wifh a direcfion To run bo'rh fhe senTences concurren'Hy. Feeling aggrieved, peTiTioner preferred an appeal before The Cour‘r of Sessions. The appeal was regis‘rered as Criminal Appeal No.69/91. Is? Addifional Sessions Judge fixed fhe case for hearing on 16.11.2000. On ‘i‘ha‘r day, The pefh‘ioner (appellan'i’) was absent Learnedrappella'l'e Judge wi'l'houi' hearing The pefifiiner (appellan'l') fixed fhe case for Judgment and subsequenfly on 20.11.2000, passed 'rhe impugned Judgment § ~ V 3) Secfion. 386 of fhe Cr.P.C. empowers The appellafe Cour? 1’0 decide fhe appeal. The relevan‘r parf of i‘l' reads as below : ~ ”385. Powers of #ye Appe/lafe Court- Affer perusing stick record and hear/hg file appe/lanf or his p/eaa’en if he appears, and fhe Public Prosecufar‘ if he appears; and in case of an appeal undersea fion 377 or secfion 378/ fbe accused if he appears; f/7e Appel/ofe (barf may, if if considers fhai' fhere i5 no sufficient ground for inferfer/ng, dismiss file appeai, or may-” 4) From bare reading of fhe above provisions, if is manifesf ‘iha’r ‘appellafe Cour‘r may, where The appeal has been preferred againsf fhe judgmenf of convic‘i’ion and order or sen'ience, offer hearing The appellant or his pleader, if he appears and The Public ProsecuTor if he appears on sufficienT ground, eiTher dismiss The appeal or may pass orders as envisaged under SecTion 386 of The Cr.P‘C. 5"); The word "if he appears“ does noT mean ThaT his absence empowers The appellaTe CourT To decide The appeal on meriT wiThouT hearing The appellanT or his pleader. In criminal maTTer wiThouT hearing The convicT or his pleader law is also seTTled ThaT Their maTTers cannoT be decided on . meriT. .ew We .iixA*~g-"__~ 6) Admiffzdly, appeHqTe Cour“? in p!ace qf securing The‘ appearance of appeHcmT, in his absence only affer hearing fhe prosecufion has decided Th3 insfan‘r appeal on merit. The impugned judgmem passed by The dppeilafa couri' is compiefely in vi'oiafion of Secfion 386 cf ‘rhe CrRC. as weiikgiiinsf 'rhe law, principie of ncn‘uml jusTice and equify. 7) In “rha resuh’, The pefifion is aliowed,’ The impugned judgmenf i i. , i passed by The append-re CourT i.e. AddiTiomi Sessions Judge Sumjpur is seT aside and The maTTer is remanded back To AddiTienai Sessions Judge Eurajpur (lower appellaTe CourT) wiTh a direcTion To decide The upped! dfTer affording boTh The parTies proper opporTuniTy of hearing in accordance wiTh law. Sew— i V.K.Shrivastava T Judge