JUDGMENT 1. - The defects, as pointed out by the office is overruled. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. As per the facts of the case, vide order dated 19.06.2012 passed by Gram Nayaylay, Sanchore, District Jalore, the petitioner was convicted and punished for different offences. The details of which, are as follows:- S.No. Offences under Section Sentence period Fine Further sentence in default of deposition of fine 1. 279 IPC 3 Months 500/- 15 days 2. 337 IPC 3 Months 250/- 7 days 3. 338 IPC 6 Months 250/- 7 days 4. 304-A IPC 1 Year 1000/- 1 Month 5. 146/196 MV Act - 500/- 7 days 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment dated 19.06.2012, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2014 dismissed the appeal in absence of him and his counsel without hearing them. It is further contended that the judgment impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing in absence of the accused-petitioner and his counsel, therefore, the judgment dated 15.11.2014 is against the principle of natural justice and deserves to be quashed and the case may be remanded to the appellate court to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that it was the duty of the accused-petitioner to remain present before the Court at the time of hearing but neither the accused nor his counsel were present to argue the case before the learned Appellate Court, therefore, there was no option for the learned Appellate Court except to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merit. 6. After hearing submissions from both the sides, I am of the firm opinion that in criminal case at the time of deciding the criminal case or appeal at least reasonable opportunity of hearing should be granted and if accused/appellant is not present, then for securing his presence, his bail bonds can be forfeited. But in the present case, the appeal of the petitioner has been decided in absence of petitioner and his counsel, therefore, on this ground the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 7. But in the present case, the appeal of the petitioner has been decided in absence of petitioner and his counsel, therefore, on this ground the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 7. In view of the above, only on the ground that order impugned dated 15.11.2014 has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, this revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 15.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhinmal Jalore in Criminal Appeal NO. 09/2014 (66/2012) is hereby quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to the appellate Court for deciding the criminal appeal afresh within reasonable time after providing opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the Appellate Court on 14.01.2015.Revision Allowed. *******