Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Khatri for the petitioner and Mr. S. N. Sinha for the State on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act at Flag A. 2. The petitioner who is an accused for an offence, under Section 366 read with Section 376, I.P,C. was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court by its judgment dated 6-8-1981. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1981. The appeal was admitted and by order dated 6-2-1990 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge at Chaibasa disposed of the said appeal on merit without hearing any body on behalf of the petitioner appellant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was all along on bail. On 26-3-1991 warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and pursuant thereto he was arrested on 16-6-1995 and was produced before the trial Court to undergo the sentence. On 29-6-1995 he filed an application for certified copy of the judgment of the Appellate Court as well as the trial Court. On 3-7-1995 the petitioner received the certified copy of the Appellate Court judgment. However, on 7-8-1995 the petitioner received information from the record from of the trial Court, that the records had not been deposited till date. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the petitioner was released on bail, he got an employment ip TISCO and he was sure of the fact that his counsel would inform about the fate of the criminal appeal preferred by him. However, no information was given to the petitioner and as such, he was under the impression that appeal was yet to be disposed of. When the petitioner was arrested on 16-6-1995, he came to know for the first time that his appeal was dismissed on merit by the lower Appellate Court. When he obtained the certified copy of the Appellate Court judgment, he could know that no body appeared on his behalf to press the appeal. 4. In the circumstances, Mr. Khatri submits that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not approaching this Court within the period of Limitation. 5. Mr. When he obtained the certified copy of the Appellate Court judgment, he could know that no body appeared on his behalf to press the appeal. 4. In the circumstances, Mr. Khatri submits that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not approaching this Court within the period of Limitation. 5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that, though, the present revision application is barred by about five years but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the limitation for filing the revision application can be condoned by this Court. 6. It is now well settled that a criminal appeal when admitted for hearing cannot be disposed of on merit affirming the order of conviction and sentence without hearing the counsel for the appellant. 7. Relying on several decisions of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Siaram Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in 1989 Cr LJ 1602, has held that when appeal is admitted, the same cannot be dismissed for non-appearance and court cannot proceed straightway to consider and dispose of the appeal itself rather should appoint a counsel on State costs to argue. 8. The learned Lower Appellate Court in my considered opinion has erred in affirming the order of conviction passed by the trial Court without hearing the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Khatri is not in a position to inform this Court as to who was engaged by the petitioner before the court below to argue the appeal. In any case, when the said counsel did not appear before the lower appellate court it was its bounden duty to engage a counsel on State cost which has not been done. 9. From the perusal of the statements made in the limitation petition, it is amply clear that the petitioner, during the period he was on bail, was employed at TISCO and he was under the bona fide impression that bis counsel would give information about the disposal of the appeal. 10. In my opinion the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching this Court in revision within the period of limitation. 11. In the result, the limitation petition is allowed and the delay in filing thin revision application is condoned. 12. Let this revision application be placed for admission in due course. Limitation petition allowed.