JUDGMENT R.K. Mahajan, J —This is a Criminal Revision under section 397 read with sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed on 5-11-1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 16-S/10 dismissing the appeal in default resulting in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan, H. P. on 28-5-1990. The revisionists/accused (hereinafter to be called "Revisionists") were convicted by the trial Court under sections 325/452/34,1 P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in case of default in payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months The revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and to direct him to decide the appeal in accordance with law. 2. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and fixed the same for hearing for 17-9-1990 after calling the record of the lower court. The revisionists were represented by counsel on 7-8-1990 and also on 17-9-1990. On 5-11-1990, none appeared for the revisionists and the case was called for number of times. The impugned order is reproduced below:— "5-11-1990: Present: Shri H.S. Rana, P. P. for the respondent. None for the appellant. Case called out a number of times. Neither the appellants nor their counsel is present. Present appeal is accordingly dismissed in default. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open Court Sd/- 5-11-1990. R.L. Khurana, Sessions Judge, Solan," 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that the revisionists have been condemned unheard resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is further urged that the revisionisms could not be made to suffer for negligence of their counsel. The impugned order has also been assailed on the ground that the appeal could not be dismissed in default. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. I have also minutely perused the record of the case. 5. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge should not have dismissed the appeal in default and it was obligatory on his part to dismiss the appeal after recording reasons on merits. I have also minutely perused the record of the case. 5. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge should not have dismissed the appeal in default and it was obligatory on his part to dismiss the appeal after recording reasons on merits. A procedure for disposal of criminal appeals is prescribed under sections 384 and 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:— "384. Summary dismissal of appeal.—(I) If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment received under section 382 or section 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 section 382 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same ; (b) no appeal presented under section 383 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same, unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous or that the production of the accused in custody before the Court would involve such inconvenience as would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the case; (c) no appeal under section 383 shall be dismissed summarily until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has % expired. (2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for the record of the case. (3) Where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is a Court of Session or of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so. (4) Where an appeal presented under section 383 has been dismissed summarily under this section and the Appellate Court finds that another petition of appeal duly presented under section 382 on behalf of the same appellant has not been considered by it, that Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 393, it satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, hear and dispose of such appeal in accordance with law." "385. Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily — (1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be given— (i) to the appellant or his pleader ; (ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf; (iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, to the complainant; (iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378 to the accused, and shall also furnish such officer, complainant and accused with a copy of the grounds of appeal. (2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already available in that Court, and hear the parties: 6. The appeal was not dismissed summarily and the provisions of section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable. The Legislature has emphasised under section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the appeal has to be disposed of after hearing the parties. Hearing means giving full opportunity to the counsel or the appellant and State counsel". The Legislature has also imposed a duty on the Court if the appeal is to be dismissed summarily, it has to record the reasons and as such it is more imperative to record the reasons after the appeal is admitted for hearing. There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for disposal of the appeal in default. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court interpreted that the procedure has to be fair, reasonable and not oppressive. In other words, if the procedure adopted is against the principles of natural justice, that procedure would be considered as illegal. In this case, the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge was unfair and unreasonable as it deprived the liberty of the accused by dismissing the appeal without following the procedure established by law. In such eventuality, the best course for the court is to give notice to the appellants and their counsel and if they do not turn up after service, the court has to decide the case on merits. In such eventuality, the best course for the court is to give notice to the appellants and their counsel and if they do not turn up after service, the court has to decide the case on merits. In some circumstances, if the crime is of very henious nature, a counsel can be appointed to defend the accused. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the trial without legal aid is vitiated. In appropriate cases the Court is under duty to appoint counsels, where the accused cannot afford to engage a counsel to defend him, 7. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has relied upon 1992 (2) Sim LC 14, Bali Ram v. Smt. Krishna Devi and others, in support of his arguments in which it has been held that a criminal appeal or revision admitted once cannot be decided without indicating reasons. It has also been held in this judgment that a criminal appeal or revision cannot be dismissed in default. He has also relied upon ILR 1973 HP 813, Mina Ram etc. v. Jivlu. In this case, the practice of dismissing criminal appeals and criminal revisions in default has been condemned and deprecated, especially when the accused have been sentenced which involved deprivation of liberty which could only be taken if the appeal had been dismissed on merits 8. The order of the learned Sessions Judge was passed in haste and complete disregard to the provisions of law which is not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving notice to the counsel and the revisionists and the State counsel. The judgment be circulated to the District Judges for their guidance. Appeal dismissed. -