Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, after trial in C. C. No. 269 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tindivanam, was convicted under Sections 279 and 338 Indian Penal Code. For the former offence he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250. 00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and for the latter offence he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The aggrieved petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1986 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram, challenging the sustainability of the verdict of the trial Magistrate. ( 2 ) THE prosecution related to an incident which had taken place at or about 7. 30 p. m. on 7/10/1984 at the Pondy-Madras main road near Ravuthankuppam village when the jeep bearing registration No. TMT-1496 driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner had dashed against a car bearing registration No. TYZ 2193 resulting in the driver of the car sustaining grievous hurt ( 3 ) THE learned appellate Judge had disposed of the appeal in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel. The appellate Court has specifically observed that since the appellant and his counsel had not appeared before him on several dates of hearing the appeal was being disposed of after hearing the learned Government Advocate. In the course of the short order tile appellate Court had stated that the evidence had been perused and the verdict of the trial Magistrate based on recorded evidence was totally sustainable. ( 4 ) IN this revision Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in criminal matters, parties must be heard before matters are decided on merits. He pointed out that when the conviction and sentence had been challenged, an appeal cannot be disposed of without hearing the appellant or his counsel. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh v. State of Bihar. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Hamid Sultan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. He pointed out that when the conviction and sentence had been challenged, an appeal cannot be disposed of without hearing the appellant or his counsel. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh v. State of Bihar. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. Hamid Sultan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. ( 6 ) IT would be better to extract the observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Nareshs case (Supra), which automatically furnish an answer for the disposal of this revision:it is an admitted position that neither the appellants nor counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence, were heard. It is no doubt true that if counsel do not appear when criminal appeals are called out it would hamper the working of the court and create a serious problem for the court. And if this happens, often the working of the court would become well nigh impossible. We are fully conscious of this dimension of the matter but in criminal matters the convicts must be heard before their matters are decided on merits. The court can dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and enforce discipline or refer the matter to the Bar Council with this end in view. But the matter can be disposed of on merits only after hearing the appellant or his counsel. The court might as well appoint a counsel at State cost to argue on behalf of the appellants. Since the order of conviction and sentence in the present matter has been confirmed without hearing either the appellants or counsel for the appellants, the order must be set aside and the matter must be sent back to the High Court for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the appellants or their counsel and on their failure to engage counsel, after hearing counsel appointed by the Court to argue on their behalf. The Supreme Court was aware of the hampering of the working of the Court when counsel do not appear when criminal appeals are called. Even when the liberty of. the citizen was involved, it was felt necessary that opportunity should be afforded to the appellant or his counsel before the appeal could be disposed of on its inherent merits. The Supreme Court was aware of the hampering of the working of the Court when counsel do not appear when criminal appeals are called. Even when the liberty of. the citizen was involved, it was felt necessary that opportunity should be afforded to the appellant or his counsel before the appeal could be disposed of on its inherent merits. The Supreme Court has further observed that in the event of failure of the appellant to engage a counsel the Court could appoint a counsel to argue on behalf of the appellant. ( 7 ) IN the light of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court I set aside the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram in C. A. No. 46 of 1986 and remand the matter back to the file of the same Court for disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case either by himself or through counsel. This revision shall stand allowed in the manner indicated above.