JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. seeks quashing of the order dated 24.3.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Jaipur vide which Appeal No. 44/1999 has been dismissed in default. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant and undisputed facts which are necessary for its disposal are that the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 7.11.1998 against which petitioner preferred appeal before the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Jaipur. The appeal was admitted and the record of the trial court was summoned. When the appeal was listed before the learned appellate court for final arguments on 24.3.2000, the accused-petitioner and his learned counsel failed to appear before the court. The learned appellate court vide impugned-order dated 24.3.2000 dismissed the appeal in default and for non-prosecution. Hence, the instant petition has been filed on the ground that the order dated 24.3.2000 dismissing the criminal appeal of the accused-petitioner in default is patently illegal, unjust and tantamounts to the abuse of the process of the court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP for the State and have perused the relevant documents placed before me. 4. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that the criminal appeal cannot be legally dismissed in default. Relying upon Shyam Deo Pandey and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1606 , it has been held by this court in Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1478 (Raj.) that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default of appearance of the appellant or his counsel. The court has either to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in order to enable the appellant to appear or it should consider the appeal on merits and pass final orders which will not be possible unless the reasoning and findings recorded in the judgment in appeal are tested in the light of the record of the case. The Karnataka High Court has also held in H.V. Afroz Azzadi v. Sriram, 1991 Cr.L.J. 2475 (Kant.) that a criminal court i.e. the appellate court or revisional court has no power to dismiss the appeal or revision in default. The Karnataka High Court has also held in H.V. Afroz Azzadi v. Sriram, 1991 Cr.L.J. 2475 (Kant.) that a criminal court i.e. the appellate court or revisional court has no power to dismiss the appeal or revision in default. The Apex Court has, in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.J. 1751 and Kishan Singh v. State of U.P., 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1010 held that dismissal of appeal for default or non-prosecution is not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such an order is non-est. The appellate court cannot dismiss the appeal for default of the appellant or his counsel in appearance. Once a criminal appeal is admitted for hearing, the court shall decide the same on merits. 5. Thus, it is plain that the impugned order dated 24.3.2000 dismissing the criminal appeal in default and for non-prosecution is patently illegal and un-sustainable in law. Indeed, it tantamounts to abuse of process of the court and calls for, justifies and warrants invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. which, as per the settled law, ought to be exercised in such cases to prevent the abuse of the process of the court for securing the ends of justice. As such, the impugned-order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Consequently, this petition U/s. 482 Cr.PC. is allowed. The impugned-order dated 24.3.2000 dismissing the appeal in default is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Jaipur for deciding the appeal on merits as per law.The parties are directed to appear before the appellate court on 10.1.2007.Petition Allowed. *******