JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revisions are preferred by same petitioner - challenged are convictions though in different cases for different offences but by the same Court and arguments raised are exactly same so and as stated by counsel for petitioner and also Public Prosecutor are being decided together. 2. For decision these revisions, factual aspects of alleged incidents need not be described in detail. Narrowingly describing necessary and as seems relevant is that (A) in relation to FIR No. 406/02 registered.for offences of Sections 324, 325, 326 in wee hours of 20.12.02 for said incident of previous evening and charge-sheet against appellant in January, 2003 resulted in registration of criminal case no. 18/03 and after trial vide judgment dated 30.06.05 petitioner Deep Singh was convicted and sentenced to different period of imprisonment running to two years six months and fine for the offence of Sections 341, 323, 321, 325, 326 IPC. Sentence awarded was suspended by the Magisterial Court and learned Sessions Judge in preferred appeal No. 33/05 also ordered suspension (B) for FIR No. 410 registered on 23.03.02 for the offence of Section 3/25 Arms Act for the incident of same day, police report was submitted and in registered criminal Case No.14/06 appellant was convicted vide judgment dated 05.04.2006 for the offence and sentenced to two years imprisonment with fine and this sentence also suspended by the trial court in Appeal No.14/06 by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. In both appeals, petitioner used to present on some dates but often absented himself and on applications, exemptions granted by learned Sessions Judge. At the request, adjournments were granted but appellant failed to present on February 1st, 2009 so warrant of arrest directed and arrest could not be effected was declared absconder on 31.03.2009. 4. While declaring absconder in both appeals on 31.03.09, learned Sessions Judge also decided and dismissed both appeals observing that as appellant had not appeared and repeatedly, so seems that not interested for decision on merits so and for absence, appeal stands dismissed. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld. 5. Consequent to above order in appeal, learned Magistrate proceeded further and ultimately appellant presented himself before the Court on July 12th who imprisoned since then under both the sentences awarded. 6. Challenging above order of deciding and dismissal of appeals are these revisions presented in July, 2010 with delay of over 350 days which condoned. 5. Consequent to above order in appeal, learned Magistrate proceeded further and ultimately appellant presented himself before the Court on July 12th who imprisoned since then under both the sentences awarded. 6. Challenging above order of deciding and dismissal of appeals are these revisions presented in July, 2010 with delay of over 350 days which condoned. 7. Preferred also is suspension application. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that appeals decided without hearing the petitioner or his counsel and seems to decided plainly In absence so infringes basic right of hearing the appellant therefore, sentences are to be suspended. Arguing for suspension argued that in all likelihood in such matters, necessary may be to remand. 8. Per rival submissions advanced and as requested, revisions are seeking adjournments may logically indicate somewhere. In the instant appeals, decisions of the trial court were of March, 2005 and appeals when decided in above manner stood pending for about four years. Learned Sessions Judge in order just prior to the adjourned date when bail bonds were forfeited accepting exemption application observed that in the interest of justice, is extended last opportunity and the appellant to present on next hearing on which day the arguments to be. On prior dates was also either exemptions granted or adjournments sought. Bail bonds were forfeited in February, 2009 and after an intermittent date of March 7th was declared absconder on 31.3.09. In between also lapsed two months during this period appellant did neither appeared himself nor did take any other steps. Nothing on record to suggest that any representative eager an inclined to argue. As above, opportunity is to be given and then it is only appellant who can avail and take appropriate steps for it. When the appellant is declared absconder after two months as above then the argument that legal assistance was mandatorily to be provided becomes very diluted. One hardly can afford to abscond and have luxury of keeping the appeal pending. Not only above, after dismissal of the appeal in March, 2009, appellant surrendered only after 16 months i.e. in July, 2009. 9. One hardly can afford to abscond and have luxury of keeping the appeal pending. Not only above, after dismissal of the appeal in March, 2009, appellant surrendered only after 16 months i.e. in July, 2009. 9. Established and provided is procedure for hearing of the appeals, of course, adequate opportunity including legal assistance for defence and hearing is to be afforded and If necessary and/or circumstances so warrant of concerned requires or/and asks then legal aid can be provided but somewhat evasive in such way at the time of hearing while sentence is suspended and then also not taking care (if not absconding) hardly can give rise to any additional advantage. Some guidance can be drawn by observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 17 SCC 377 Dharampal v. State of U.P., 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 596 : AIR 2008 SC 920 , though that was a case where the appellate court weighed the conclusions of trial court. Repeated absence, knowingly ignoring or indifference are equivalent to evading due course of law. Doing so or being much indifferent and casual one can hardly have an advantage of keeping appeal pending at his will. When repeated attendance exemptions through counsel granted then contention of lacking, legal assistance hardly can be tenable.In the instant matters, as the appeals are decided on 31.03.09 in above manner then taking up instant revisions may tantamount to (hearing on merits) challenge to conviction and sentence by Magistreal court which otherwise appealable to Sessions Court. Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397, and other jurisdiction is wide but then as in instant revisions the person in a way direct from Magistreal court is allowed to agitate in this Court which otherwise not permitted an also not available is critical and analytical reasoning of the appellate court thus leads to scuttling and by passing established procedure and that too because of laches of aggrieved accused convict. 10. Taking all cumulatively, as petitioner arrested and whereas learned Sessions Judge has not gone into merits anywhere, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, is just and appropriate to direct rehearing of the appeals by the Sessions Court. 11. For the reasons above, setting aside the impugned orders, directed to hearing of the appeals afresh. 12. Therefore, order in Appeals Nos. 11. For the reasons above, setting aside the impugned orders, directed to hearing of the appeals afresh. 12. Therefore, order in Appeals Nos. 14/06 and 33/05 dated 31.03.09 are set aside Learned Sessions Judge is directed to hear the appeals taken up for final disposal. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though petitioner failed to appear on February, 11th but the same due to constraints and in any case, he is declared absconder on 31.03.09 that is within two months of the declaring him absconder. Argues that considering the period passed, the appellant cannot be deemed to have absconded or evaded the process. Argues that by learned Sessions Judge merits not touched at all, therefore, if not taken by this Court in revision on merits, it is to be remanded. Submits that right of legal assistance is very valuable right and though appellant was represented by Advocate but if application for exemption was refused then, before proceeding learned Judge either ought to have adjourned it further or have appointed a counsel under the provisions of legal aid and other legal provisions. Argues that not provided with opportunity of hearing the order dismissing the appeal deserves to be set aside. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that appellant preferring to absent did not avail the opportunity of hearing. 15. Giving thoughtful consideration to rival contentions had a careful look at the record. 16. The procedure for hearing of appeals is like this "Powers of the Appellate Court-After perusing such record and hearing the Appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if the appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering dismiss the appeal ....... 17. While hearing the appeals, opportunity of hearing is to be given. Opportunity of hearing is to be given but to avail or not by appearing, attending or otherwise is on him - not availing repeated opportunities and afresh. Accordingly, petitioner also at liberty to move suspension application under Section 389 Cr.PC. before the Sessions Judge who to decide without in any way being influenced by this order or any earlier orders.Revision Disposed of as Above. *******