S. Acharya, J.
1. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 475 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- on each count; in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo R, I. for one month more on each count. The substances of imprisonment, have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. Mr. Kanungo, the learned Counsel for the appellant criticised the judgment of the appellate court as not in accordance with law, inter alia, on the grounds that there is absolutely no discussion regarding the particular offences for which the appellant has been convicted, no independent assessment and/or sifting of the evidence on record has been made in order to examine if the findings in the impugned judgment are correct or not; and that it has proceeded mostly on irrelevant considerations.
3. Mr. Kanungo cited a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 1969 Cri AR 297, wherein their Lordships, on the finding that the judgment of the appellate court neither contained an appraisal of the whole evidence in the case nor did it show that the learned Judge applied his mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case in all aspects, remanded the case to the appellate court for hearing and disposal. Their Lordships therein observed that it was not enough for the appellate court to summarise mechanically all the arguments advanced by the appellant and those advanced on behalf of the prosecution and to say that it accepted the prosecution case with regard to the guilt of the appellant.
I would preferably quote a few sentences from the aforesaid decision which are as follows:
It is necessary that the judgment of the appellate court must contain a critical appraisal of the whole evidence in the case and must give clear reasons for the conclusions arrived at. This is specially important in a case where the facts are complicated and intricate and the evidence is contradictory. The judgment must show that the appellate court has applied its mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case from all aspects. It is not enough to set out the arguments of both the sides without setting out the reason why any particular argument has been accepted or rejected.
In this connection 'the decisions of this Court reported in : AIR1969Ori75 and (1969) 35 Cut LT 1052 should be seen.
4. Having heard the counsel of the parties and having perused the judgment of the lower appellate court I am satisfied that there is enough justification for the criticism raised by Mr. Kanungo. In the impugned judgment the court below has practically devoted his entire efforts only to meet the contentions raised before him on behalf of the appellant, and fin doing so it merely referred, in general, to the summary of the evidence which may be on record, without particularly referring to the evidence of any witness on each aspect of the matter. There is absolutely no assessment, sifting or discussion of the evidence on record with regard to the offences on which the appellant stands convicted. He has not at all referred to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence. The appellate court in writing out judgments in Criminal Appeals should make the best of endeavour to follow the repeated pronouncements and observations in this respect made by the Supreme Court and by this Court in several decisions, some of which have been noted above.
5. As the impugned judgment suffers from the above infirmities and deficiencies, it is a fit case which should go back to the court below on remand, who, on a proper appraisal of the entire evidence on record should dispose of this case in accordance with law and in accordance with the authoritative observations and pronouncements made in connection with writing out judgments in appeals.
6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Court below for hearing and for disposal in accordance with law and the above observations, within as short a time as possible. All the relevant records be sent back to the court below immediately.
7. This Criminal Revision is allowed accordingly.