IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 166 OF 2010 Hira Singh ….…Revisionist. Versus State ……...Respondent. Present: Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. Date of Decision : 20.8.2010 Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the revisionist as well as Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 Hira Singh Vs. State, whereby the appeal of the revisionist/appellant has been dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Indeed from the order dated 24.5.2010, which is presently being impugned, it is clear that the revisionist/appellant was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced under Section 279 and 304 A I.P.C. When the appeal was pending before the learned Sessions Judge the revisionist/appellant repeatedly remained absent and therefore, learned Sessions Judge constrained to pass such an order. 4. It is by now settled position of law that normally an appeal is not dismissed for non prosecution. In case the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the revisionist / appellant was deliberately avoiding the Court, there were other recourses open for the learned Sessions Judge, such as cancellation of his bail and even to proceed with the matter ex parte, on merits. Instead of proceeding the case on merits and deciding the same, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution, which may not be the correct method under the circumstances. 5. In view of the above, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned 2 Sessions Judge, Champawat. The revisionist/appellant shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat on 21.9.2010. On that date, the learned Sessions Judge shall hear both the parties and decide the case on its merits, and in case the revisionist/appellant fails to appear, learned Sessions Judge shall decide the case on its merits ex parte. 6. It is further directed that the revisionist/appellant, who is now in jail, shall be released on bail on furnishing securities in the same terms as earlier fixed by the Court below. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.8.2010 Rathour