- (1.) By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 4.3.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2000, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 22 nd July 2000 in P.C.R. No. 229 of 1994| T.R. No. 821 of 2000, convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court below that the appeal was decided undefended by the learned appellate Court below, inasmuch, no one was appearing for the appellants on the date when the appeal was taken and nor the Court below appointed anyone to defend themselves and has decided the appeal without hearing the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants accordingly submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction After hearing learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned Judgment, I am of the considered view that since the petitioners had filed the appeal before the Court below and even if no one appeared for theappellants in the Court below, which ought to have decided only after appointing some counsel to defend the appellants, either Amicus Curiae or through the District Legal Services Authority. In view of the fact that the appeal has been decided without hearing the appellants, the judgment passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;