G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THESE applications are filed on behalf of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2000 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the judgment of this Court dated 8-1-2003 and to re-hear the matter afresh. ( 2 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, an Advocate filed an affidavit in support of the petitions contending that he is the counsel for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2000 filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents (accused) in S. C. No. 230 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. He stated that while admitting the Criminal Appeal this Court directed the Sessions Judge to take steps under Section 390, Cr. P. C. and when the learned Sessions Judge issued N. B. Ws. for the arrest of the accused, they appeared before the Sessions Court on 22-3-2000 and they were committed to the prison after rejecting their bail application. He therefore filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2000 on 23-3-2000 and also filed Criminal M. P. No. 1568 of 2000 for the release of the accused on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal and this Court was pleased to release them on bail. He further stated in the affidavit that on 3-2-2003 his clerk made enquiries in the Office of the High Court and came to know that the said appeal was disposed of on 8-1-2003 and the name of Sri M. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate was shown as the counsel for the respondents in the cause title of the judgment. He further mentioned that the appeal was heard and disposed of without showing his name in the cause list on the dates when the appeal came up for final hearing and, as his name did not appear in the cause list he could not appear for the respondents. He further mentioned that it is his responsibility to defend the respondents and he could not inform the respondents about the hearing of the appeal, as his name was not printed in the cause list. He further mentioned that it is his responsibility to defend the respondents and he could not inform the respondents about the hearing of the appeal, as his name was not printed in the cause list. He further mentioned that the respondents have no opportunity to put forward their submissions through him and as a result of mistake or negligence of the Registry the respondents-accused were deprived on an opportunity of contesting the appeal through the Advocate of their choice. Hence the petitions to set aside the judgment and to re-hear the appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that as the docket of the appeal and the proceedings sheet did not indicate that Sri C. Praveen Kumar filed Memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents and when the matter came up for hearing in the cause list, the Court, on finding that no Advocate made appearance on behalf of the respondents-accused, appointed Sri M. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate of this Court as a State Brief on 23-8-2002 to defend the accused-respondents and directed the Registry to furnish a set of papers relating to the appeal. Accordingly the Registry to furnish a set of papers relating to the appeal. Accordingly the Registry furnished a set of papers to Sri M. V. Ramana Rao. Subsequently the matter underwent several adjournments, the arguments continued at length on various dates and ultimately the arguments were concluded on 5-12-2002 and the judgment was reserved. The counsel appointed by the Court and the Public Prosecutor were given maximum opportunity to appraise the Court on all factual aspects and legal position and ultimately after conclusion of the arguments the matter was reserved for judgment. The Court, after taking into consideration the entire material available on record and the submissions made by the counsel, delivered its judgment on 8-1-2003 holding that the prosecution established the guilt of A. 1 , A. 2, A. 3 and A. 5 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly reversed the acquittal given by the Sessions Judge in S. C. No. 230 of 1994 convicting them for the offence under Section 302, IPC. ( 4 ) AFTER the filing of this application by Sri C. Praveen Kumar the record was verified and it is noticed that he filed Memo of Appearance in the bail application covered by Criminal M. P. No. 1568 of 2000, but the fact that he filed the Memo of Appearance on behalf of the respondents in the appeal was not mentioned on the docket sheet of the main appeal which was the usual practice of the Registry. Since there was no endorsement on the docket of the main appeal and as the name of the counsel for respondents was not printed in the cause list, the Bench was under the bona fide impression that the respondents were not represented by any counsel. Therefore, the Crown Brief was entrusted to an Advocate by name Sri M. V. Ramana Rao to defend the respondents. Though Sri C. Praveen Kumar who filed Memo of Appearance for the respondents along with the bail application could not be heard, there was sufficient representation on behalf of the respondents accused to defend their cause and to assist the Court in the process of analysing the material available on record and arriving at a conclusion after putting the judgment of the Sessions Court to test with reference to the material available on record. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-accused drew the attention of this Court to certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in this regard. In Swarth Mahto v. Dharmdeo, AIR 1972 SC 1300 , the Supreme Court held that where an appeal against acquittal came up for hearing nearly 21/2 years after the issue of notice to the accused and the cause-list of the day of hearing contained only appeal number but not the names of the accused-respondent and his advocate resulting in conviction of the accused without hearing his counsel, it could not be said that the accused was given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Hence an application by him for re-hearing of appeal in his presence deserved to be allowed. ( 6 ) IN the case covered by the above decision, the accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 420, IPC, but, on filing an appeal by the complainant before the Patna High Court and on receipt of the notice, the appellants-accused appeared in the High Court through their Advocate. ( 6 ) IN the case covered by the above decision, the accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 420, IPC, but, on filing an appeal by the complainant before the Patna High Court and on receipt of the notice, the appellants-accused appeared in the High Court through their Advocate. By some mistake neither the names of the appellants nor their counsel appeared in the cause list and the case was heard in their absence on Dec. 16 and 17, 1968. The appeal was allowed, the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 420, IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The appellants-accused came to know of the said order subsequently and made an application to the Court for re-hearing of the appeal in their presence. That application was dismissed by the Court holding that no opportunity has been denied to the appellants of being heard. The Supreme Court, under these circumstances, held that there was no proper hearing of the appeal and directed the High Court to hear the same afresh after issuing necessary notice to the parties. ( 7 ) IN G. Raj Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 2315 the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding the failure of the counsel for the accused to appear due to mistake of Registry of the High Court in not showing the names of the counsel in the cause list and the counsel not being aware of listing of the case before the Court and held that disposal of appeal in such cases on merits in the absence of counsel for parties is not proper and directed restoration of the appeal for fresh disposal. The Supreme Court in the above decision observed as follows : 5) It is no doubt true that it is open to the Court to dispose of an appeal on merits even in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties when the case is set down for hearing and the advocate or the party concerned does not appear. However, when the learned counsel could not appear before the Court not on account of the fault either of the appellant or the advocates themselves, but on account of mistake committed by the Registry of the High Court in not showing the names of the counsel in the cause list properly and the counsel not being aware of the listing of the case before the Court in such a matter we do not think that principle should be extended. ( 8 ) IN the case covered by the above decision the Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. in default to suffer S. I. for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1993 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The accused-appellants engaged the services of two advocates viz. , Sri Shankar Rao Biloliker and Sri Milind Gokhale and subsequently they were replaced by Sri Anil Kumar and Sri C. Praveen Kumar, who filed Memo of Appearance on 25-10-1993 with the consent of the learned counsel appearing earlier in the case. On 12-8-1997 Sri Milind Gokhale filed a Memo that the appellant had taken away the file and wanted to engage some other counsel and he has already endorsed no objection on Vakalath . The matter was listed for hearing on 14-8-1997, 26-8-1997, 27-8-1997 and finally on 29-8-1997, on which date the appeal was dismissed. On all the above dates the name of Mr. Milind Gokhale was shown as the counsel for the appellants despite the Memo of Appearance filed by Sri Anil Kumar and Sri C. Praveen Kumar. However, that information was not put up with the file and their names were not printed in the cause list. In these circumstances the appeal was dismissed in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. When an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the appellants to set aside the dismissal order was filed, this Court dismissed the petition observing that Sri Milind Gokhale whose name was shown in the cause list should have informed the appellants and as the Criminal Appeal was disposed of on merits, the same would not be restored. When an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the appellants to set aside the dismissal order was filed, this Court dismissed the petition observing that Sri Milind Gokhale whose name was shown in the cause list should have informed the appellants and as the Criminal Appeal was disposed of on merits, the same would not be restored. Under the above circumstances the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order passed by the High Court and remitted back the same to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law by restoring the appeal to its original number. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above two decisions, but there is lot of difference in the facts of the cases covered by the above decisions and the present case. In the above cases, nobody was heard on behalf of the accused and the orders were passed taking into consideration the material available on record. But, in the case on hand, the Bench, on seeing the cause list noticed that the name of the counsel for appellants (petitioners herein) was not printed against the appeal number, asked the Court Officer who was dealing with the case bundle to verify the name of the counsel for appellants from the Memo of Appearance, if filed. The Court Officer was not able to inform the Bench whether any advocate was engaged by the respondent-accused to defend themselves in the appeal. Therefore, the Bench, with a view to give sufficient opportunity to the accused, appointed Sri M. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate as Crown Brief on 23-8-2002 instructing him to go through the brief and prepare well to advance arguments on behalf of the accused. Subsequently the matter was adjourned to 20-11-2002, 3-12-2002 and 5-12-2002 by making it part-heard. On 5-12-2002 the Public Prosecutor and the counsel who was appointed as Crown Brief on behalf of the accused concluded the arguments and the appeal was reserved for judgment. On 8-1-2003 the Bench delivered its judgment by reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court in respect of four (4) accused and confirming the acquittal given by the trial Court in respect of others. On 8-1-2003 the Bench delivered its judgment by reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court in respect of four (4) accused and confirming the acquittal given by the trial Court in respect of others. No doubt the mistake of the Registry in not noting the name of the counsel for the respondents on the docket of the appeal grounds and not printing the name of Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate as counsel for the respondents in the cause list resulted in not providing opportunity to Sri C. Praveen Kumar to advance his arguments, but the Bench had taken all precautions to see that the appeal shall not be heard in the absence of a counsel. Therefore, the Court took the services of Sri M. V. Ramana Rao as a Crown Brief to advance arguments on behalf of the respondents-accused and to meet all the points raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court is of the firm opinion that both sides were given sufficient opportunity to ventilate the points for and against the prosecution. The judgment was delivered on merits after hearing both sides and after considering the entire material available on record. If the same is set aside on the ground that Sri C. Praveen Kumar was not given opportunity to advance his arguments, it amounts to altering the judgment which is not permissible under Section 362, Cr. P. C. In the light of the above circumstances, we express our inability to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Criminal M. P. No. 988 of 2003 is accordingly dismissed. ( 10 ) SINCE the main application for restoration of the appeal is dismissed, Criminal M. P. No. 987 of 2003 is also dismissed. Application dismissed.