JAKKU RAMAKANTHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 14-2-1996 of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1994 on his file, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision-pelitioner-accused in C.C.No-47 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. The appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penaf Code and convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500.00and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of twenty days.

(2.) The impugned order dated 14-2-1996 dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1994 reads as follows: "Appellant absent. No representation as neither Counsel nor parties present. Hence appeal dismissed for want of substantive of the grounds of appeal. Issue NEW to accused for sending him to jail for serving the sentence.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner contends lhat the impugned judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal for default is contrary to law, that (he learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the mandatory provisions under Section 386 Cr.P.C., that the dismissal of the appeal for default is not contemplated under Section 386 Cr.P.C. and that even in the absence of Ihe appellant and his Counsel, it is mandatory on the part of the Appellate Judge to peruse the record and pass the judgment on merits. The learned Public Prosecutor also is not in a position to support the impugned order of dismissal of the appeal as it is not on merits.