Order: The revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1973. The learned Sessions Judge passed the following order dismissing the appeal. It reads as follows: “Appellants called absent. Their Advocate is also absent. No representation. Appeal dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants.” 2. Sri Rajasekhara Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners now contends that the judgment pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal for default is contrary to law. The learned Counsel further contends that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the mandatory provisions of section 423 (I), Criminal Procedure Code (old). He further contends that the dismissal of the appeal for default is not contemplated under section 423 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and even if the appellant’s Counsel has not appeared at the time when the appeal was called on, he ought to have given a decision disposing of the appeal on merits. Hence he contends that the order passed by the lower appellate Court should be set aside and the appeal should be sent back for disposal on merits. 3. I find myself totally in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 4. A careful reading of section 423 (1) Criminal Procedure Code makes it abundantly clear that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default of appearance of the appellants or their Counsel. The only course open to the appellate Court is that either it has to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in order to enable the appellants to appear or he should dispose of the appeal on merits and pass final orders after perusing the record and after hearing if the Public Prosecutor is present. 5. Section 423, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows: “The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already in Court. After perusing such record, and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears....” It is thus clear that the learned Sessions Judge has not adverted to the mandatory provisions of section 423 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. Had he perused the provisions of section 423 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, he could have known that he had no jurisdiction at all to dismiss the Criminal Appeal for default. Had he perused the provisions of section 423 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, he could have known that he had no jurisdiction at all to dismiss the Criminal Appeal for default. Thus the learned Sessions Judge committed an error of law and his order is, therefore, vitiated with illegality. I, therefore, find merits in the revision petition and set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and direct the learned Sessions Judge to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of the matter on merits according to law. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed.