JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 14/89 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 27.10.1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 359/78 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 and sentenced him to 1 month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days' S.I. 2. In this revision petition, the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment dated 29.4.1995 has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur without hearing the accused petitioner or his counsel as on that date, none was present on behalf of the accused petitioner and therefore, the impugned judgment dated 29.4.1995 suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and should be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned PP has supported the judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur and submitted that the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute on the point that the judgment dated 29.4.1995 was pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur without hearing the counsel for the petitioner or petitioner himself. 6. The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether the impugned judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be sustained or not. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 1500 has observed that in criminal matters, convict must be heard before matter is decided on merits, meaning thereby that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the matter can be disposed of on merit only after hearing the counsel for the convict or the convict himself. 8. 8. Thus, I am of the clear opinion that when the counsel for the appellant or the appellant himself was not present, the appellate Court should not have disposed of the case on merits and if on the date of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant is not present or he himself is not present, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to appoint a counsel at State cost and in absence of that the appeal should not be decided. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Yadav, the impugned judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and this revision petition deserves to be allowed.For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur to decide the appeal of the accused petitioner on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the accused petitioner or accused petitioner himself and till the appeal is decided, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Udaipur is directed to release the accused petitioner on bail forthwith on usual. conditions as to be imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur immediately.Revision Allowed - Case Remanded For Disposal on merits. *******