Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.11.1992 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge. Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 126/86 thereby and thereunder the appeal was dismissed for default. 2. The fact, in short for the purpose of this revision is that these petitioners were facing trial in the Court of Sri R.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate. 2nd class Giridih. in G.R. Case No. 1435/82 (T.R. No. 159/86) and by judgment dated 25.7.1986, the learned Judicial Magistrate found these petitioners guilty under Sec. 379 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a further fine of Rs. 200.00 each was imposed for the offence under Sec. 144 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of conviction, the petitioners preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 126/86. But. the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 23.1.1992 dismissed the appeal as the lawyer for the appellants had not turned up for arguing the case, though he was properly informed and confirmed the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, this revision has been preferred. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that admittedly the appeal was against the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the appeal was admitted and L.C. Record was called for. In that view of the matter, without hearing the Counsel for the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for default and, thus, it is against the provision of Sec. 385 Cr.P.C. Admittedly on 23.11.1992 criminal Appeal No. 126/86 was dismissed only for the reason that the lawyer for the appellant was informed and he has not turned up for arguing the case and so without hearing the Counsel for the appellant, the appeal was dismissed. No doubt the learned appellate Court has relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 Eastern Criminal Cases 702 Ram Naresh Yadav and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and dismissed the appeal, but the principle laid down in the Ram Naresh Yadav case (supra) is wholly otherwise. No doubt the learned appellate Court has relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 Eastern Criminal Cases 702 Ram Naresh Yadav and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and dismissed the appeal, but the principle laid down in the Ram Naresh Yadav case (supra) is wholly otherwise. It was held that the appeal preferred against the order of conviction cannot be disposed of without hearing the Counsel and if at all the Counsel for the appellant is not taking step, then in that view of the matter, a defence panel lawyer may be appointed to argue the case on behalf of the appellant and then the appellate Court will dispose of the appeal. But in the instant case, no defence panel lawyer was appointed to assist the Court in disposing of the criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant, and at the same time the appellate Court has not taken pain to go through the evidence on record and to record a finding on its merit. In that view of the matter, the order date 23.11.1992 passed in Criminal Appeal 126/86 through which the appeal was dismissed for default is apparently bad in law and as such hereby set aside and Criminal Appeal No. 126/86 is hereby remitted to the Court of 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Giridih, with this direction to re-hear the appeal on merit and if the appellants Advocate will not appear on the appointed date, then a lawyer from the defence panel may also be appointed to argue the case on behalf of the appellants and then to dispose of the appeal on merit. 4. In the result, this revision is allowed in the manner indicated above.