ORDER The Application was filed to recall the order, dated 16-04-2007 passed by this Court in Crl.A.No. 419 of 2006 and restore the Appeal. 2. The Appeal was dismissed on 16-04-2007 for want of representation on behalf of the Appellant by observing that the conduct of the Appellant indicated that he is not interested in pursuing the Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Application on the ground that the Court cannot set aside the order of dismissal of an Appeal in view of Sections 362 and 387 of Cr.P.C. He also cited a Judgment of the Supreme Court in support of his contention in Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.1, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Sections 362 and 387 of Cr.P.C., held that: "An appellate Court has no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. A Sessions Judge cannot set aside his first order passed in appeal dismissing the appeal, when neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared and cannot order the re-hearing of the appeal. Section 369 read with Section 424 of the Code, makes it clear that the appellate Court is not to alter or review the judgment once signed, except for the purpose of correcting a clerical error. Assuming that the Sessions Judge could exercise inherent powers, we are of opinion that he could not pass the order of the rehearing of the appeal in the exercise of such powers when Section 369, read with Section 424 of the Code, specifically prohibits the altering or reviewing of its order by a court. Inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the court from doing. In the case covered by the above decision the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the Appeal observed as follows: "The Appellants have been absent, and their learned counsel has also not appeared to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants. I have perused the Judgment of the learned Magistrate and seen the record. I find no ground for any interference. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 4. In the above case, despite the absence of the Appellants' counsel, the Court perused the entire record and passed the order on merits on the basis of the record. It is not the case of dismissal for default. I find no ground for any interference. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 4. In the above case, despite the absence of the Appellants' counsel, the Court perused the entire record and passed the order on merits on the basis of the record. It is not the case of dismissal for default. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. for dismissal of the Appeal for default. The above Judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court when the matter was disposed of on the material available on record. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court was declined to set aside the order for rehearing of the Appeal. 5. In the present case, the learned Judge has not gone into the merits of the case. He simply dismissed the Appeal for default on the ground that neither the complainant nor his counsel was present. When there is on provision in Cr.P.C. for dismissal of the Appeal for default and when such matter is dismissed for default; it becomes an illegal order. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Crl.M.P. is allowed. The order, dated 16-04-2007 in Crl.A.No. 419 of 2006 is recalled and the Appeal is restored. Post the matter for final hearing.