Order: This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1963 on his file dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for default of the petitioner’s counsel. The 2nd Magistrate, Bangalore passed an order forfeiting the surety bond executed by the petitioner under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Cr. Mis. No. 20 of 1963 on his file. Being aggrieved by that order the present petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the District Magistrate, Bangalore, in Cr. Mis. Appeal No. 1 of 1963. The learned District Magistrate entertained the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. After the respondent was served the appeal was posted for arguments. On 5th October, 1963, when the appeal came up for arguments neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the Public Prosecutor were present and the learned District Magistrate dismissed the appeal for default. It is against this order that this Revision Petition is presented by the petitioner. It is urged by Mr. Giddappa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the learned District Magistrate admitted the appeal and issued notices to the respondent he is not entitled to dismiss the appeal for the non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the learned District Magistrate was bound to peruse the records and pass a considered order on the material available on record and could not dismiss the appeal for default. Mr. Giddappa’s contention is, in my opinion, correct. There is no separate procedure prescribed for dealing with appeals filed under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has in Dasharathalal v. State1, held that when no separate procedure is prescribed for dealing with such appeals the provisions contained in sections 410, 421 to423 should apply and that if section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied the Court is bound to peruse the record and hear the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears and then dispose it of according to law and it is not entitled to dismiss the appeal for default of the appellant. I agree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and hold that the procedure prescribed for dealing with appeals under sections 419, 421 to 423 should be applied while dealing with the appeals filed under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the appeal filed by the Petitioner under section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is governed by the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sections 421 to 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no difficulty to hold that the order of dismissal passed by the learned District Magistrate on the ground that the Petitioner’s counsel was absent on 5th October, 1963, is illegal and should beset aside. In an unreported case in Bhavu Annappa Berad v. The State2 Tukol, J., has while dealing with a case dismissing the appeal for non-appearance of the lawyer for the appellant under section 423 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed: “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. 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.” In view of this position of law, I am of the Opinion that the order of dismissal passed by the learned District Magistrate cannot be supported. The order is therefore set aside and the case is sent back to the Court which dismissed the appeal for consideration of it on merits. The learned District Magistrate should give both the petitioner and the respondent on opportunity to appear at the hearing of the appeal and dispose it of on merits. S.V.S. ------ Order set aside.