Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. This application arises out of an order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting thepetitioners" application for restoration of their Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1981. 2. While dismissing the said criminal appeal the learned Sessions Judge stated: "The appeal is called out. No body appears on behalf of the appellants to press the appeal. It appears that the appellant is not taking any step since four days. The memo of appeal is, there fore rejected." 3. On an application filed for recalling the said order the learned Sessions Judge held: "There is no provision for restoration of criminal appeal. Moreover the memo of appeal was rejected for the defaults of appellants after I had considered the judgment. Hence, the petition for restoration of the appeal is rejected." 4. The petitioners were convicted under sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act by the Judicial Magistrate and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. They preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1981 before the learned Sessions Judge. They did not take any steps in the appeal on the dates fixed i.e. 2.1.1982, 6.1.1982, 81.1982 and 13.1.1982. When the appeal was called out on 23.1.1982, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants to press the appeal. On these admitted facts, there is no doubt that reasonable opportunity of hearing was given, to the appellant but they did not avail it. Therefore, the appellate Court could have summarily dismissed the appeal under sec. 384(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The section reads: "If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment received under sec. 382 or sec. 383, the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily: Provided that: (a) no appeal presented under sec. 382 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader had reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. Clause (3) of sec. 384 provides; "Where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is a Court of Sessions or of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so." 5. As I have stated above, on the facts of this case, reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the appellants and there is no sufficient explanation for their failure in not taking appropriate steps in the appeal. As I have stated above, on the facts of this case, reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the appellants and there is no sufficient explanation for their failure in not taking appropriate steps in the appeal. Therefore, there was no illegality when the appellate court dismissed the appeal summarily. But in accordance with the provisions of sec. 384 (1)(a) of the Code, while dismissing the appeal summarily, the appellate court has to examine the petition of appeal and the copy of the judgment received under sec. 382 or sec. 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and upon such examination, if the appellate court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, only, then it can dismiss the appeal summarily. Further, clause (3) of sec. 384 provides that where the appellate court dismissing an appeal under this, section is a Court of Sessions, as in the present case, it shall record its reasons for doing so. 6. In the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal summarily, it is nowhere stated that he examined the petition of appeal and the copy of Judgment and upon such examination it considered that there was no sufficient ground for interfering. The only reason recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in summarily dismissing the appeal was that "no body appeared on behalf of the appellants to press the appeal and they did not take steps since last four days". Of course, in his subsequent order passed on the restoration application, it was recorded that, "the memo of appeal was rejected for the default of appellants after he had considered the judgment." 7. In the result, it must be held that the order passed by the Sessions Judge in dismissing the appeal summarily was not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 384 (1) (a) and sub-section (3) of section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is, therefore, set aside and the learned appellate court is directed to restore Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1981 to its original file in order to bear and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 8. This petition is accordingly allowed.