Order.- This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Crl.A. No. 148 of 1961 of that Court. The order is one of dismissal of the appeal and reads as follows: “Counsel absent. Appellant is also absent. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The accused will undergo the rest of the imprisonment and pay the fine.” The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that this order is illegal The contention deserves to be upheld in view of the very clear wording of section 423 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section prescribes the procedure which an appellate Court should follow after the appeal is filed. It has to send for the records of the case in the first instance and then “after perusing such record, and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 411-A, sub-section (2), or section 417, the accused, if he appears, the Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal * * *” It would thus be clear that whether the accused or his counsel appears or not, whether the Public Prosecutor appears or not in any criminal appeal, it is the duty of the appellate Court to peruse the record and dismiss the appeal only “if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering”. The learned Sessions Judge has not prima facie complied with these provisions of law and has thus passed an erroneous order. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure as in the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, if the appellant or his Advocate fails to appear on the day fixed. As a conviction involves an infringement on the liberty of a citizen, the Legislature has cast an obligation on the appellate authority, where none appears to plead for the appellant, to peruse the record and satisfy itself that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering. This view is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court which is noted in the ‘Noter-up Service’ of the Mysore Law Journal (see Issue of 10th April, 1962) in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, where the appeal was dismissed for default. This view is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court which is noted in the ‘Noter-up Service’ of the Mysore Law Journal (see Issue of 10th April, 1962) in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, where the appeal was dismissed for default. Their Lordships observed: “A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default of the appellants or their counsel. The Court has either to adjourn the hearing of the appeal or consider the appeal on merits.” In view of this legal position, which is also supported by many other decisions, I allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge and remand the case back to his Court for hearing and disposal according to law. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.