THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1449 of 2009 Dated: 28th August, 2009 Between: 1. Guguloth balu & Anr. …Petitioners and 1. The State of A.P.,rep. by is P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1449 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners/accused assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.06.2007 passed in C.C.1379 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Warangal, for the offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1379 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Warangal. The learned Magistrate found the petitioners/accused guilty for the offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months, by judgment dated 15.06.2007. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal for default. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submits that the appeal presented by the accused assailing the conviction and sentence cannot be dismissed for default and such dismissal is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.Ravinder v. State[1]. 5. It is well settled proposition of law that when once an appeal against conviction is admitted, the same cannot be dismissed without hearing the appellant or his counsel on the ground that the appellant or his counsel or both are absent, and when the appellant or his counsel or both happened to be absent or the counsel is not ready to argue the matter for any reason, it is the duty of the appellate Court to appoint a counsel at State cost, hear him on merits and then dispose of the appeal. In view of the settled proposition of law, the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal appeal is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed in Crl. Appeal No.53 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th August, 2009. cs [1] 1990 (2) ALT 605