ORDER Having found the grounds for delay in filing the revision sufficient, Delay Condonation Application No. 419 of 2013 is allowed. Delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. 2. On the charge-sheet submitted by the police of Sahaspur, District Dehradun, accused Ilfam Hussain was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 427 and 304A of IPC. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, vide order dated 30th August, 2006, convicted Ilfam Hussain for the offences proved against him and was sentenced according to law. 3. Aggrieved against the said order, criminal appeal No. 43 of 2006, Ilfam Hussain v. State of Uttarakhand was preferred before the Sessions Judge at Dehradun, which was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun for disposal according to law. On 26-11-2012, when the criminal appeal was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of appellant and the same was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 26-11-2012. Such an order is being assailed by the appellant in this criminal revision. 4. Section 384 of Cr. P. C. provides for a summary dismissal of appeal. Section 385 speaks about the procedure for hearing appeals which are not dismissed summarily. Section 386 provides for the powers of appellate Court. It is provided in Section 384 of Cr. P. C. that no appeal presented under Section 382 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the same. No appeal presented under Section 383 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the same, unless the appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous...... 5. It was held in para 14 of the judgment of Bani Singh and others v. State of U. P. (1996) 4 SCC 720 ( AIR 1996 SC 2439 ), by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the plain language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the appellate Court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it must call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is received, the appellate Court may dispose of the appeal after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simplicitor. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simplicitor. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial Court are consistent with the material on record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record. 6. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Singh v. State of U. P. (1996) 9 SCC 372 also that the Court could not have proceeded to dismiss the criminal appeal on the ground that the Advocate for the appellant was not present. The position of criminal appeal is not the same as in a civil appeal governed by Civil Procedure Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure, in express terms, requires the matter to be considered on merits. The criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non prosecution and this is the reason as to why the Criminal Procedure does not contain any special provision like Order 41, Rule 19, CPC. 7. Learned Court below has committed a manifest error of law by not deciding the criminal appeal on merits. Even if learned counsel for the appellant was not present before the Court, the Court below should have appointed an Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the appellant or it should have issued coercive measures to procure the presence of the convict-appellant before the Court or should have summoned the convict from jail, if he was in jail, and should have decided the criminal appeal on merits, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid rulings. The impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 8. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26-11-2012, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006 is hereby set aside. Learned Addl. The impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 8. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26-11-2012, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2006 is hereby set aside. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to decide the criminal appeal on merits, keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment of the body as above. Petition allowed.