Judgment : SWAMIDURAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the accused questioning the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 1184 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The accused/petitioner was found guilty under, Section 21 (d), (e) (1) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Rule 3 read with Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Sandal Wood Possession Rules and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yew by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur. On appeal by him, learned Sessions Judge passed the following order: the appellant is continuously absent inspite of several adjournments. The counsel for the appellant reports no instructions. Records perused. Heard Public Prosecutor. There is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court are confirmed and the and is dismissed. The lower court shall take immediate action to secure the accused and commit him to the prison to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. By the above order, die learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. ( 2 ) MR. N. Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without securing the accused by coercive methods and without hearing him, the procedure adopted by the lower appellate court, is not in accordance with law and therefore the judgment of the lower appellate court has to be set aside. He relied upon the decision S. Rathinam v. State. Relying upon the judgment Ram Naresh v. State, this Court has held that the appellate court shall not dispose of the appeal without hearing the appellant or his counsel. In the event of failure of the appellant to communicate his counsel, the court should appoint a counsel at the expanse of the State to argue the case of the appellant Admittedly, in this case, the appellant was not present and the counsel has reported no instructions. In the circumstance the lower appellate court ought not to have confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. In the circumstance the lower appellate court ought not to have confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. The procedure adopted by the lower appellate court is not correct The order of the lower appellate court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court shall engage a counsel for the petitioner at the expense of the state, hear the case and dispose of the matter according to law within three months from now. The revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.