The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A.No.18 of 2013 in C.C.No.92 of 2002, passed by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. The Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, while passing the impugned judgment in C.A.No.18 of 2013 (filed by the revision petitioner as the appellant) on 27.04.2015, at paragraph No.3, had observed the following:

3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A.No.18 of 2013, passed by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused as an aggrieved person, has preferred the instant Criminal Revision petition before this Court.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant urges before this Court that before the appellate court, neither the Revision Petitioner/Appellant had appeared nor his counsel had appeared to address arguments in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013 and in fact, the appellate court in its judgment in C.A.No.18 of 2013, dated 27.04.2015, at paragraph No.3, had inter alia observed as under:

and consequently dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.92 of 2002 , dated 10.06.2013.

5. Added further, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the appellate court in its judgment in C.A.No.18 of 2013, dated 27.04.2015 at paragraph No.3 had observed among other things as under:

6. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S.Panduranga V. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 2 MLJ (Crl) 80 (SC) at special page 90, wherein in paragraph Nos.36 and 37, it is observed as follows:

7. He also seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in D.L.Saleem Ahamed V. Evan Paper & Board (India) Pvt. Ltd., Krishnana Ayyangar rep. by S.Seeman-Business Co-ordinator, Chennai-02, reported in (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl) 253, at page 253 at special page 256, whereby and whereunder at paragraph No.11, it is observed as follows:

8. The core contention advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Appellant before this Court is that the Appellate court has no power to dismiss the appeal, even in the absence of the Appellant or the appellant's counsel and in short, the appellate court has no power to dismiss the appeal for default.

9. Apart from that, it is projected on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/appellant that in case, an advocate for the appellant does not appear in an appeal, for which he is engaged by a party, then a Court of Law is to appoint an advocate either from the Legal Aid Panel of lawyers or to appoint an amicus curiae and then only is to decide an Appeal on merits of the matter.

10. At this juncture, this Court very pertinently points out that a Criminal Court namely an Appellate court or a Revisional court has no power to dismiss the appeal or revision for default, where the counsel for the appellant had not appeared, then the Court would appoint some advocate as amicus curiae and determine the appeal on merits. It cannot be brushed aside that right of an 'Appeal' is a statutory one of an accused especially in a criminal case, where the issue of conviction and sentence is involved.

11. Further, this Court aptly points out the decision Ibrahimsab V. Faridbi, reported in (1986) 2 All Crl.L.R.429 at special page 430, wherein, it is observed as under:

12. At this stage, also this Court cites the decision of Honourable Supreme Court Ram Naresh Yadav V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC at page 1500, wherein, it is held that appeal cannot, however be disposed on merit, unless accused or his counsel are heard.

13. Besides the above, in so far as 'the dismissal of Revision' for default is concerned, the dismissal of Revision for default is not permissible and that the Sessions Judge/High Court has to decide the case on merits as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 10 SCC 472. To put it succinctly, an Appeal/Revision is to be decided on merits, as per decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay D.Salvi V. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 5 SCC page 741.

14. In the upshot of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions and in view of the fact that the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused had not chosen to advance his arguments before the appellate court in C.A.No.18 of 2013, despite sufficient chances and notice was also served on appellant's counsel, which was made mention of by the Appellate court in its judgment in C.A.No.18 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the dismissal of C.A.No.18 of 2013, in the absence of Revision Petitioner/Appellant not advancing his arguments and also his counsel not appearing in the Appellate court, is not a proper one and because of the reason the appeal was not decided on merits. Even a cursory perusal of the judgment passed by the Appellate court in C.A.No.18 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015 clearly indicates that there is no appreciation/evaluation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 or the Exs.P.1 to P.5, marked on the side of the prosecution. Since the first Appellate court had not disposed of C.A.No.18 of 2013 on merits and also not appointed an Advocate/Amicus curiae or the Legal Aid Counsel to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant, the judgment passed in C.A.No.18 of 2013 suffers from patent illegality in the eye of Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Court sets aside the judgment of the Appellate court, dated 27.04.2015 in C.A.No.18 of 2013 to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Criminal Revision succeeds.

15. In fine, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A.No.18 of 2013 passed by the Learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. Further, consequent to the allowing of present Criminal Revision Petition, this Court directs the Learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai to restore the Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2013 to file and to dispose of the same on merits in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

1.The Fourth Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Elumali Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..