ORDER Petitioner is the accused and he stands convicted under Sections 489 (c) and 489 (e) (1) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur. On being convicted, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 489 (c), IPC and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 489 (e) (1) of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence, the present revision. 2. Case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that at 7.30 p.m. on 15-2-1992 the petitioner was found in possession of 92 counterfeit notes of 100 rupees denomination and he was also found in possession of ten toy currency notes of 10 rupees denomination and that he was in possession of toy notes with view to make use of them. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the appellate Court decided the appeal without giving him an opportunity to argue his appeal. He brought to my notice the observations of the learned appellate Judge in paragraph 9 of the judgment. It is seen from the said judgment that the appeal was taken on file on 26-11-1998 and posted for hearing to 12-1-1999 on which date the petitioner was not present. A warrant was issued by the learned Sessions Judge and later, the petitioner surrendered before the appellate Judge on 1-2-1999. His surrender application was allowed and the appeal was adjourned for hearing to 10-2-1999 thereafter to 18-2-1999 and later to 24-2-1999. On all the dates the petitioner did not appear. On 5-3-1999 also, to which date the appeal stood adjourned, the petitioner did not appear and hence, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of the petitioner and his Counsel on hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and passed the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that even if the advocate refuses to argue for the accused, the Court must, instead of summarily dismissing the appeal, appoint an advocate amicus curiae and then proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits which the learned Judge failed to do. In support of his plea, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Khaili vs. State of U.P. 1982 SCC (Crl.) 143. The Supreme Court in the above Judgment has observed that howsoever diligent the learned judge might have been and however careful and anxious to protect the interests of the appellants, his effort could not take the place of an argument by an advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and that the learned Sessions Judge should have appointed an advocate as amicus curiae and then proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. Since the learned Sessions Judge did not appoint any advocate for the petitioner when he disposed of the appeal, I feel that interest of justice requires that the matter be remanded to the appellate Court for fresh hearing and disposal on merits by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. I therefore, remand the matter back to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sriviliputhur for the purpose of hearing of C.A. No. 99 of 1998. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will appear before the Sessions Judge on 27-7-2000 and the appeal will be heard by the learned Sessions Judge on that date. In the event of the petitioner not appearing before the learned Sessions Judge, on that date, the learned Sessions Judge will issue a non-bailable warrant against him and after securing his presence, hear the appeal on merits after hearing the arguments of the petitioner advanced by himself or through his advocate. The revision is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur for fresh disposal on merits.