ORDER : 1. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 in C.C. No. 92 of 2002, passed by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, while passing the impugned judgment in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 (filed by the revision petitioner as the appellant) on 27.04.2015, at paragraph No. 3, had observed the following: "The appellant contended that the trial court failed to see the delay of 4 years in registering the case. Further, the appellant contended that the amount is very meager and there was a communal violence at the time of payment and the same was also accepted by all the witnesses." Ultimately dismissed the appeal, thereby confirmed the judgment in C.C. No. 92 of 2002 dated 10.06.2013, passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Usilampatti. 3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A. No. 18 of 2013, passed by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused as an aggrieved person, has preferred the instant Criminal Revision petition before this Court. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant urges before this Court that before the appellate court, neither the Revision Petitioner/Appellant had appeared nor his counsel had appeared to address arguments in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2013 and in fact, the appellate court in its judgment in C.A. No. 18 of 2013, dated 27.04.2015, at paragraph No. 3, had inter alia observed as under: "The accused also has not chosen to advance his argument despite sufficient chances and notice was also served on the appellant's counsel. Hence, this court holds that the above appeal is liable to be dismissed." Consequently dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial court passed in C.C. No. 92 of 2002, dated 10.06.2013. 5. Added further, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the appellate court in its judgment in C.A. No. 18 of 2013, dated 27.04.2015 at paragraph No. 3 had observed among other things as under: "The appellant contended that the trial court failed to see the delay of 4 years in registering the case. Further, the appellant contended that the amount is very meager and there was a communal violence at the time of payment and the same was also accepted by all the witnesses. Though these contentions were raised by the appellant the trial court answered that the delay of 4 years cannot be a valid ground to disbelieve the prosecution version which proved the non payment and the commission of the offence and the absence of any evidence by the accused to adduce the existence of communal violence as the valid reasons for the delay in registering the case. This Court also is not able to find any evidence on the side of the accused except the alleged admission of the prosecution witnesses about the communal violence and that the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that the amount is very meagre as contended by the accused. The accused also has not chosen to advance his argument despite sufficient chances and notice was also served on the appellant's counsel. Hence, this court holds that the above appeal is liable to be dismissed." Contends that when the Appellate court in its judgment had stated at the end of paragraph No. 3 that the accused (appellant) had not chosen to advance his arguments, despite sufficient chances and notice was also served on the appellant's counsel etc., then, it was observed at the beginning of paragraph No. 3 of the judgment in Criminal Appeal that the appellant contended that the trial court failed to see the 4 years delay in registering the case etc.,' is mutually a contradictory one, which exhibits prima facie non-application of mind. 6. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Appellant cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 2 MLJ (Crl) 80 (SC) at special page 90, wherein in paragraph Nos. 36 and 37, it is observed as follows: "36. In view of the aforesaid annunciation of law, it can safely be concluded that the dictum in Mohd. 36 and 37, it is observed as follows: "36. In view of the aforesaid annunciation of law, it can safely be concluded that the dictum in Mohd. Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam (supra) to the effect that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of counsel for the accused and that too, if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing, being contrary to the ratio laid down by the larger Bench in Bani Singh and Others vs. State of U.P (supra), is per incuriam. We may hasten to clarify that barring the said aspect, we do not intend to say anything on the said judgment as far as engagement of amicus curiae or the decision rendered regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix therein or the role of the Bar Association or the lawyers. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that High Court should not have decided the appeal on its merits without the presence of the counsel does not deserve acceptance. That apart, it is noticeable that after the judgment was dictated in open Court, the counsel appeared and he was allowed to put forth his submissions and the same have been dealt with. 37. At this juncture, we are obligated to state that in certain cases, this Court had remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh hearing and in certain cases, the burden has been taken by this Court. If we allow ourselves to say so, it depends upon the facts of the each case. In the present case, as we perceive, the High Court has dealt with all the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel at a later stage and, hence, we think it apposite to advert to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the merits of the case." 7. He also seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in D.L. Saleem Ahamed vs. Evan Paper & Board (India) Pvt. Ltd. Krishnana Ayyangar rep. by S. Seeman-Business Co-ordinator, Chennai, (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl) 253, at page 253 at special page 256, whereby and whereunder at paragraph No. 11, it is observed as follows: "11. In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttarpradesh, (2015) 1 SCC Crl. by S. Seeman-Business Co-ordinator, Chennai, (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl) 253, at page 253 at special page 256, whereby and whereunder at paragraph No. 11, it is observed as follows: "11. In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttarpradesh, (2015) 1 SCC Crl. 313 case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines as to the disposal of the criminal appeal, when the counsel for the appellant was not present. It is not that when the counsel for the appellant was not present, the Court cannot dispose of the appeal. The Court can adjourn the appeal to enable the counsel to appear or without adjourning the criminal appeal, the Court can dispose of the criminal appeal, but, after fully referring to the evidence on record, either it can allow the appeal or dismiss it. But, it must dispose of the appeal on merit." 8. The core contention advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Appellant before this Court is that the Appellate court has no power to dismiss the appeal, even in the absence of the Appellant or the appellant's counsel and in short, the appellate court has no power to dismiss the appeal for default. 9. Apart from that, it is projected on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/appellant that in case, an advocate for the appellant does not appear in an appeal, for which he is engaged by a party, then a Court of Law is to appoint an advocate either from the Legal Aid Panel of lawyers or to appoint an amicus curiae and then only is to decide an Appeal on merits of the matter. 10. At this juncture, this Court very pertinently points out that a Criminal Court namely an Appellate court or a Revisional court has no power to dismiss the appeal or revision for default, where the counsel for the appellant had not appeared, then the Court would appoint some advocate as amicus curiae and determine the appeal on merits. It cannot be brushed aside that right of an 'Appeal' is a statutory one of an accused especially in a criminal case, where the issue of conviction and sentence is involved. 11. Further, this Court aptly points out the decision Ibrahimsab vs. Faridbi, (1986) 2 All Crl. It cannot be brushed aside that right of an 'Appeal' is a statutory one of an accused especially in a criminal case, where the issue of conviction and sentence is involved. 11. Further, this Court aptly points out the decision Ibrahimsab vs. Faridbi, (1986) 2 All Crl. L.R. 429 at special page 430, wherein, it is observed as under: "While under Sec. 397, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judge has ample power to call for and examine the records of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court within his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Criminal Court, under Sec. 399 (perhaps ought to Sec. 399), in case of any proceedings, the record of which have been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge has power to correct the orders of the inferior Court; and in doing so, he can exercise the same power as exercised by the High Court under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 401, Criminal Procedure Code. Once the records of the inferior Criminal Court are called for examining the correctness, legality of propriety of the order, recorded or passed, and the revision is posted for hearing whether the revision petitioner is present or not, the only order that can be made or passed is of rejecting or allowing the revision on merits. The order of dismissal of the revision for default is neither contemplated under the Code nor can one be made. Such an order of dismissal for default is no order. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate of making an order of dismissal of revision for default." 12. At this stage, also this Court cites the decision of Honourable Supreme Court Ram Naresh Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500 , wherein, it is held that appeal cannot, however be disposed on merit, unless accused or his counsel are heard. 13. Besides the above, in so far as the dismissal of Revision for default is concerned, the dismissal of Revision for default is not permissible and that the Sessions Judge/High Court has to decide the case on merits as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 10 SCC 472 . 13. Besides the above, in so far as the dismissal of Revision for default is concerned, the dismissal of Revision for default is not permissible and that the Sessions Judge/High Court has to decide the case on merits as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 10 SCC 472 . To put it succinctly, an Appeal/Revision is to be decided on merits, as per decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay D. Salvi vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 741 . 14. In the upshot of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions and in view of the fact that the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused had not chosen to advance his arguments before the appellate court in C.A. No. 18 of 2013, despite sufficient chances and notice was also served on appellant's counsel, which was made mention of by the Appellate court in its judgment in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the dismissal of C.A. No. 18 of 2013, in the absence of Revision Petitioner/Appellant not advancing his arguments and also his counsel not appearing in the Appellate court, is not a proper one and because of the reason the appeal was not decided on merits. Even a cursory perusal of the judgment passed by the Appellate court in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 dated 27.04.2015 clearly indicates that there is no appreciation/evaluation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 or the Exs.P.1 to P.5, marked on the side of the prosecution. Since the first Appellate court had not disposed of C.A. No. 18 of 2013 on merits and also not appointed an Advocate/Amicus curiae or the Legal Aid Counsel to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant, the judgment passed in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 suffers from patent illegality in the eye of Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Court sets aside the judgment of the Appellate court, dated 27.04.2015 in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Criminal Revision succeeds. 15. In fine, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 passed by the Learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. Consequently, the Criminal Revision succeeds. 15. In fine, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.04.2015 in C.A. No. 18 of 2013 passed by the Learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. Further, consequent to the allowing of present Criminal Revision Petition, this Court directs the Learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai to restore the Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2013 to file and to dispose of the same on merits in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.