(1) AFFIDAVIT filed by the Home Secretary is perused. We accept the explanation and condone the delay on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (2) LEAVE granted. (3) THIS is a case where the respondents were convicted of offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 on the first count and imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 500 on the second count. (4) THE respondent filed appeal before the Sessions Court where the conviction and sentence were confirmed by a detailed and reasoned judgment. When the respondents preferred a revision before the High Court, learned Single Judge set aside the conviction and sentence by a cryptic order in the following lines: "THE sole ground on which the conviction is ordered by the courts below is the confession. In such cases, the prosecution is expected to conduct the investigation with all seriousness, which the present case lacks, as the offence alleged is serious in nature namely under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and as the accused are bank employees and should have furnished correct information before the courts, in the absence of which the courts below cannot take into consideration the confession as the basis for convicting the accused. In my view the said approach is incorrect. Time and again it has been held that confession is not a substantial and conclusive piece of evidence. Hence the revisions are allowed and conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below are set aside." (5) LEARNED counsel for the appellant State has rightly contended that exercise of revisional jurisdiction as against concurrent findings on facts should not have been as laconic and supercilious as the impugned judgment. The judicial power of revision has not been exercised in accordance with law in the case. When the learned Single Judge said that the prosecution is expected to conduct the investigation with all seriousness, he did not advert to any reason to hold that seriousness has not been shown by the investigating officer in this case. Even if there were laches on the part of the investigation, learned Single Judge has not stated as to why the oral evidence in support of the prosecution should be discarded. Even if there were laches on the part of the investigation, learned Single Judge has not stated as to why the oral evidence in support of the prosecution should be discarded. The entire discussion made by the learned Single Judge is confined to the passage extracted above, which is reflective of the non-exercise of revisional power. (6) THE approach of the High Court is unfortunately very unsatisfactory and is not the way in which a revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised. In the interest of justice and for fairness to the respondents we remand the matter to the High Court for disposal of the revision afresh for which purpose we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. It is open to the respondent to move the High Court for speeding up the matter. (7) THE respondents were on bail when the revision was pending in the High Court. We order the same bail bonds to revive with all the conditions attached thereto. Such bail bonds will continue to be in force till the revision is disposed of.