JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 20.01.2018, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Gagnanagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed his appeal in default and for want of prosecution against verdict dated 29.07.2016, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court). 2. Bare necessary facts for the purpose of this revision petition are that respondent-complainant filed a complaint against petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner took a loan from him worth Rs. 8,50,000/- and while discharging his aforesaid liability, he gave him cheque of the aforesaid amount. It is further averred in the complaint that when the said cheque was presented before Bank, same was dishonored with the report that account has already closed. The learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act and handed down sentence of one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10 lacs. Being aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court at the threshold suspended the sentence. When appeal came up for hearing on 20.01.2018 neither the petitioner, nor his counsel were present, and therefore, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal in default and for want of prosecution. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned appellate Court has committed grave and serious error in dismissing the appeal in default and for non-prosecution without examining the merits of case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by learned appellate Court be set at naught and the matter be remanded back to the learned appellate Court for deciding appeal afresh on merits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has deliberately avoided appearance before the learned appellate Court, and therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has deliberately avoided appearance before the learned appellate Court, and therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Alternatively, learned counsel for the complainant submits that if the matter is remanded back then the appellate Court may be directed to decide the appeal with promptitude within a stipulated duration. 5. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 6. While it is true that a litigant pursuing his appeal against conviction is required to be vigilant in attending the proceedings and furthermore the lawyer representing his cause is also expected to remain present when the appeal is called out for hearing but then appellate Court is not expected to dismiss the appeal in default or for non-prosecution without dilating on merits of the case. The law on the point is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in Bani Singh, has examined that aspect and held :- "We have carefully considered the view expressed in the said two decisions of this Court and, we may state that the view taken in Shyam Deo case appears to be sound except for a minor clarification which we consider necessary to mention. 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 simpliciter. 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. 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. Therefore, with respect, we find it difficult to agree with the suggestion in Ram Naresh Yadav case that if the appellant or his pleader is not present, the proper course would be to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution." 7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be reversed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Resultantly, instant revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned appellate Court for deciding appeal of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. The appellate Court is expected to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the learned appellate Court on 07.03.2018. 9. Since the main revision petition is disposed of and the matter has been remanded back to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh, the sentence handed down by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No. 576/2014, vide judgment dated 29.07.2016 against applicant-petitioner, Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kana Ram, shall remain suspended till 09.03.2018 and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge.