Judgment : In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner challenges the docket order dated 28.01.2014 in Crl.A.No.861 of 2013 passed by learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad appointing a learned Advocate as amicus curiae to represent the respondent/ accused in the appeal. 2) Factual side, the present petitioner filed C.C.No.13 of 2012 before the XII Special Magistrate, at Erramanjil, Hyderabad under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused. After full trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused having found not guilty of the offence. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.861 of 2013 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad passed the following docket order dated 28.01.2014 which is being impugned: The Appellant called absent. The Respondent called absent. Notices sent to the Respondent/ Accused by Two RP covers returned as unclaimed. Hence the service held to the Respondent is hereby taken as sufficient. Absence of the Appellant/Complainant condoned on petition. Sri Sreedhar Goud, Advocate is hereby appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the Respondent. For hearing call on 20-2-2014. 3) The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that under Section 385 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has only power to issue notice to the respondent/ accused but it has no power to appoint an amicus curiae. Learned counsel would argue, the endorsements on the R.P covers to the effect unclaimed as having been treated as sufficient service and found the respondent/ accused not turning up, the Court ought to have issued warrant for securing his presence but ought not to have appointed an amicus curiae to represent him which procedure is not contemplated under Cr.P.C more particularly in Section 385 Cr.P.C. 4) I find some force in the above contention. Section 385 Cr.P.C deals with the procedure for hearing appeals which were not dismissed summarily. Section 385 Cr.P.C deals with the procedure for hearing appeals which were not dismissed summarily. It reads thus: Section 385 - Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily (1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be given- (i) to the appellant or his pleader; (ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf; (iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, to the complainant; (iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378, to the accused, and shall also furnish such officer, complainant and accused with a copy of the grounds of appeal. (2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already available in that Court and hear the parties: Provided that if the appeal is only as to the extent or the legality of the sentence, the Court may dispose of the appeal without sending for the record. (3) Where the only ground for appeal from a conviction is the alleged severity of the sentence, the appellant shall not, except with the leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any other ground. 5) Thus Section 385 (1)(iv) Cr.P.C contemplates issuing of notice to the accused when appeal is filed against the acquittal. The impugned docket order dated 28.01.2014 shows that the appellate Court followed this procedure and issued notice to the respondent/ accused through registered post and it returned with the endorsement as unclaimed. To this extent the appellate Court was right. It may be noted that neither Section 385 nor other provisions of Cr.P.C laid down the procedure to be followed when the respondent/ accused failed to turn up to the Court having received the notice sent under Section 378 (1) (iv) Cr.P.C. In such an event, the question that would arise is (i) whether the Court can hear the appellant alone in the absence of respondent/ accused and his counsel or (ii) whether the Court can suo motu appoint an amicus curiae for the absentee respondent/accused and hear the appeal as done in the present case or (iii) whether the Court can secure his presence by adopting coercive steps i.e, by issuing warrant against him. a) The first option is concerned, deciding the appeal in the absence of the counsel (and also the respondent/ accused in this case) can be ruled out in view of the decision reported in Md. Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam ( AIR 2011 SC 1222 ), wherein the Apex Court by referring the judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ) has observed thus: Hence, in our opinion, if a criminal case (whether a trial or appeal/revision) is decided against an accused in the absence of a counsel, there will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, deciding a criminal case, be it the trial Court or appellate/Revisional Court, in the absence of counsel for accused is unwarranted. b) The second option relates to Courts suo motu appointing amicus curiae in the absence of an accused. When the principle that Court shall not hear a criminal case (including trial, appeal, revision) in the absence of a counsel for accused as discussed supra is accepted, Courts appointing an amicus curiae for the absentee-accused in the present case cannot be found fault. However, it is always desirable that the Court at first try to secure the presence of the accused by issuing summons and then warrant. If the respondent/accused attends and engages a counsel, he can be heard or if he seeks legal aid due to indigence, the Court can appoint an amicus curiae (legal aid counsel) for him. If ultimately the Court is unable to secure the presence of the respondent/ accused in the Court despite exhausting the aforesaid methods due to his abscontion, then there is nothing wrong in Courts suo motu appointing an amicus curiae for the absentee-accused and hear the appeal/ revision. (For the trial of criminal cases in respect of an absconded accused different procedure is contemplated). c) The 3rd option is concerned, the same is discussed in the second option. (For the trial of criminal cases in respect of an absconded accused different procedure is contemplated). c) The 3rd option is concerned, the same is discussed in the second option. d) So, at the outset, it can be said that in an appeal/revision when the appellant/respondent and his counsel failed to turn up, the Court shall secure the presence of appellant/respondent by issuing summons or warrant, as the case may be, and after securing the presence of the concerned party, proceed with the hearing of the parties by their counsel and if the party seeks legal aid then appoint an amicus curiae (legal aid counsel) and hear the matter. If the Court failed to secure the presence of the concerned party in spite of issuing summons/warrant, the Court can suo motu appoint an amicus curiae for the absentee party and hear the matter in which case, latter the party cannot plead that he is not bound by the arguments addressed by the appointed counsel. 6) In view of the above discussion, in the considered view of this Court, the appellate Court was not right in appointing an amicus curiae at the very first instance without trying to secure the presence of the respondent/accused. Therefore, the impugned docket order dated 28.01.2014 of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is set aside with the following directions: a) Learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad shall issue bailable warrant in Crl.A.No.861 of 2013 to secure the presence of the respondent/accused and hear if he engages a counsel. b) In the event of his seeking legal aid, the Court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent the respondent/accused. c) In the event of the Court failing to secure the presence of respondent/accused despite taking coercive steps, the Court can engage an amicus curiae for respondent/accused and hear the appeal and decide on merits. 7) Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.