IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 91 of 2001 ----------------------------------------- CC.58/1997 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARY CRA.280/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANGASWAMY S/O VIVEKANANDAN ASHA SADANAM KIDANGARA MURI VELIYANAD BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR KUTTANAD 2. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.91 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September 2010 ORDER Petitioner was tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramankary along with another for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Both the accused were found guilty and convicted and sentenced. Petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.2, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default sentence. 2. The above order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was challenged by him before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.280/98. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after noticing that the appellant was absent. The above judgment is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I am afraid the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the appeal for default. It is trite that the appeal preferred by an accused cannot be summarily dismissed without considering its merit, even if the appellant/accused is absent. The court could have appointed a State Brief to assist the court or otherwise the court ought to have perused the records Crl.R.P.No.91 OF 2001 :: 2 :: and heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The procedure adopted by the court below is totally erroneous. 4. Therefore,the order passed by the court below is set aside. The case is remitted to the appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on October 4, 2010. It will be open to him to engage a counsel, if he is so advised. Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE jes Crl.R.P.No.91 OF 2001 :: 3 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.91 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 9th September 2010