JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack upholding the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code (? I.P.C. ? for short). 2. The Petitioners were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jajpur u/s 395. 1. P. C. for having committed dacoity in the house of the informant (p.w. 1) in the night of 19.4-1978 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each. The Petitioners preferred an appeal through counsel which finally came up for hearing on 13-5-1982 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On that day the following order was recorded by him: None appears for the Appellants. P. P. is present for the Respondent - State. Arguments beard for the Respondents. To 15-5-1982 for judgment. On 15-5-1982, judgment was delivered and the appeal was dismissed. It is necessary to mention here that it,appears from the record of the Criminal Appeal that on some earlier dates of hearing the Petitioners had applied for adjournment of hearing. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has urged that the counsel for the Petitioners in the criminal appeal did not appear on 13-5-1982. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have appointed an Advocate amicus curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of die Petitioners. In that view of the matter, the case should be sent back to the learned? Additional Sessions Judge for rehearing of the appeal. Learned Additional Standing Counsel has very fairly conceded that this is a fit case which should be remanded for rehearing of the appeal so that the Petitioners can be represented by counsel to argue their case. 4. In Khaili and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1982 Cri. LJ 143, it was observed by the Supreme Court that howsoever diligent the learned Judge may be and however careful and anxious he may be to protect the interest of the Appellants, in the absence of their counsel, his effort cannot take the place of an argument by an Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants and in such a case, if an Advocate appearing for the Appellants does not attend the Court and does not argue, the appellate Judge should appoint an Advocate amicus curiae and then proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance was placed on this observation by a learned Single Judge of this Court is a case reported in S. Mohan Rao Vs. Bhubaneswar Rath, and it was held that it is the duty of die Judge to appoint as Advocate amicus curiae for disposal of the appeal on merits in case of non-appearance of the Advocate for the accused. With respect I agree with the observations and hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have appointed an Advocate amicus curiae for hearing arguments on behalf of the Petitioners and then dispose of their appeal on merits. For the above purpose it is necessary to remand the case so that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall rehear the appeal on the basis of the observations made above 5. In the result, therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the case is remanded to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for rehearing of Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1981 of his Court in the light of the observations made? above. I am given to understand by Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that he would represent the Petitioners in the aforesaid Court. He shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27-7-1987 for directions. The lower Court records may be transmitted forthwith.