MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18-10-2002 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998 dismissing the appeal in default.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision is that the revisionist, Man Singh, was tried by 4th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for the offence under Sections 297, 338, 427 and 304-A, IPC and convicted for the said offence. The trial Court also awarded sentences for the aforesaid offences. The revisionist filed criminal appeal against the said order which was pending in the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura being criminal appeal No. 10 of 1998. On 18-10-2002, the appeal was dismissed in default.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the criminal appeal cannot be dismissed in default but it should have been decided on merit. Sections 381 to 386, Cr.P.C. and onwards contain various provisions in respect of an appeal to the Court of Session Section 384, Cr.P.C. deals with summary dismissal of an appeal. However, if the appeal is not dismissed summarily and survives the next procedure to be followed is laid down in Sections 385 and 386, Cr.P.C. Section 386, Cr.P.C. makes it imperative on the Appellate Court to peruse the record and hear the parties on merits. The Apex Court and the High Court, have been repeatedly impressing upon Sessions Court not to dismiss the appeal in default. The criminal appellate Courts and the High Court are exclusively governed by Section 386, having no inherent power, cannot dismiss the appeal in default but must dispose of the appeal on merits on a perusal of the records even when the appellant or his counsel does not appear to press or prosecute the appeal.