JUDGMENT 1. :- This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 31.5.97 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer, whereby in default of an accused Nasruddin & his advocate, he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction & sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Ajmer, whereby he was convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to six months' S.I. with a fine of Rs. 250/- each on first & second count, and to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- on third count, and two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the last count. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not decide the appeal of accused petitioner on merits. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgments of the courts below. 3. In Bani Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2439 and Full Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the judgments rendred in Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1500 and Shyam Deo Pandey Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1606 , and observed as under : "It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place when the appeal is posted for hearing. This is the requirement of the Code on a plain reading of Sections 385-398 of the Code. The law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent. If the Court does so as a matter of prudence or indulgence, it is a different matter, but it is not bound to adjourn the matter. It can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and the judgment of the trial Court. The plaint language of Sections 385 & 386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. It can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and the judgment of the trial Court. The plaint language of Sections 385 & 386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law dearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment, but by cross checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial Court are consistent with the material on record. 4. In such circumstances, it is abundantly apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised jurisdiction vested in him as an appellate Court and has committed patent illegality in dismissing petitioner's appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, and the judgment dated 31.5.98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Ajmer, is hereby quashed and the case is remitted back with the direction that he shall decide petitioner Nasruddin's appeal No. 8/93 on merits in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is at present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer, he should file fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer, who shall decide the same immediately in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******