Judgment :- The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.482 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur and he was convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.62 of 2010 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also filed a petition seeking suspension of sentence as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner had already been suspended by the trial Court after the fine amount being paid. The said appeal and the petition were numbered on 11.08.2010. But at the time of calling the appeal, as there was no representation and accused was absent, an order of dismissal was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner viz., Palraj Mosses is aged about 64 years and he was affected by illness on that day and therefore, he went to take some tea and he could not be present in the Court. In the meantime, the case had been called and dismissed. Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner, who had been in another Court, came and represented before the Court. But the learned Sessions Judge had already dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that unless the petitioner is given a chance to argue the appeal, he would be sent to prison and the sentence of imprisonment is also suspended by the trial Court only till today. 3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records. 4. It appears from the docket order made in C.A.No.62 of 2010 that appeal has been numbered only on 11.08.2010 and the particulars have been written in the docket by the concerned Clerk on 11.08.2010. On the same day, it was mentioned in the docket that "Accused absent. Petition is dismissed". 4. It appears from the docket order made in C.A.No.62 of 2010 that appeal has been numbered only on 11.08.2010 and the particulars have been written in the docket by the concerned Clerk on 11.08.2010. On the same day, it was mentioned in the docket that "Accused absent. Petition is dismissed". The learned Sessions Judge has not mentioned at what time the case was called though at the time of calling, the accused was not present and whether the case was passed over also is not known. Further, though it is an appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned it as a petition and dismissed. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind at all but finds an easy way of disposing an appeal. Even in an earlier occasion, while the same judge had dismissed an appeal for default, this Court passed an order in Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2010 that once the appeal is filed, the Appellate Court cannot dismiss the appeal for default or for non-prosecution. Even if the appellant is found absent continuously, the Appellate Court should engage a counsel appointed by legal aid centre and the Court must take utmost care to go through the records and find out whether there are any merits in the case. In the said order, this Court also quoted the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1996 S.C.C. (Crl.) 848 (Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) and another decision reported in (Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar & others). In spite of that, the learned Sessions Judge again found a shortcut method of disposing an appeal. The manner in which the learned Judge disposed the appeal is not appreciable. 5. If an appeal is thrown out without considering it on merits it would cause a grave prejudice to the accused, violating the rights of the accused. 6. Therefore, this Court feels that it would be proper to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in C.A.No.62 of 2010 is set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the matter in C.A.No.62 of 2010 as per law. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvellur on 31.08.2010. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the matter in C.A.No.62 of 2010 as per law. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvellur on 31.08.2010. 7. In the meantime, it is open to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for extension of the period of suspension of sentence already granted. This Court makes it clear that the trial Court may extend the period of suspension of sentence, since as per Section 389 (3) of Cr.P.C. the trial Court has got power to suspend the sentence by affording sufficient time to the accused to present an appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court.