( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh. As nobody is appearing for the respondent we considered the cause shown for the delay and we condone this delay. ( 2 ) LEAVE granted. ( 3 ) THE respondent was convicted of an offence under Section 332 of the indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Sessions Court in appeal confirmed the said conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. When the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court, learned Single Judge disposed of the revision as per the impugned order. In the first paragraph of the impugned order learned Single Judge had only narrated the facts and mentioned what contentions have been raised by the respondents counsel before him. Thereafter, learned Single Judge has disposed of the revision by two short paragraphs which are reproduced herein:"i have perused the evidence of witnesses and judgments of the lower courts. The evidence of witnesses is full of contradictions and material discrepancies and I found force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the contradictions in material witnesses, I allow this criminal revision case setting aside the order of conviction passed by the lower courts and accordingly the accused is set at liberty. " ( 4 ) IT is disquieting to us that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure has been exercised by the learned Judge of the High Court in such a slipshod manner. Apart from indicating in an omnibus narrative that the evidence is full of contradictions and material discrepancies, learned Judge did not even point to a single discrepancy or contradiction worth the name in the impugned order. We have hardly come across a case free from discrepancies or even contradictions, it is the nature and dimension of such contradiction which can have any bearing on the conclusions. But the High Court had said that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. After mentioning so, learned Single Judge jumped to the conclusion that in view of the contradictions the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. But the High Court had said that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. After mentioning so, learned Single Judge jumped to the conclusion that in view of the contradictions the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. ( 5 ) WE may observe that there was abdication of judicial function in exercising revisional jurisdiction of the High Court which is reflected in the impugned order. It is virtually an unreasoned order which is antithesis to judicial function. We cannot permit the impugned order to remain in force. ( 6 ) WE, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The High Court will now dispose of the revision afresh in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.