ORDER : (V. Srishananda, J.) Heard Sri.M.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.7848/2018 dated 30.04.2022 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – IV, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.626/2022. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court suspended the order of conviction and sentence by order dated 02.06.2022 and ordered to secure the Trial Court Records. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice of the appeal and Trial Court Records were received on 17.11.2022. Matter thereafter was listed eleven times before the First Appellate Court but on all those dates of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant remained absent. Taking note of the conduct on the part of the revision petitioner/appellant, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on 04.09.2024 passed the following order: “Case has been called out. Learned Public Prosecutor is present. Appellant and counsel absent. Perused the records. It is evident from the order sheet that there is no representation on behalf of the appellant on several adjournments. So, it appears that the appellant is not interested. As such, appeal is dismissed by confirming the Trial Court judgment. Office is directed to send back the Trial Court Records.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision. 7. Sri.M.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the approach of the learned Judge in First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in law especially having regard to the rights envisaged for the accused in criminal justice system. 8. He further pointed out that the lawyer could not note proper hearing dates and whereby he lost track of the appeal and only when the appellant/revision petitioner came to know about the present impugned order, he questioned the lawyer and then the lawyer who represented the appellant/revision petitioner has told the appellant/revision petitioner that he lost track of the case because of lost of his dairy. Therefore, impugned order needs to be set aside. 9. Therefore, impugned order needs to be set aside. 9. He also pointed out that law on the point is very clear inasmuch as even in the absence of the appellant/revision petitioner, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has to reassess the material evidence and then pass appropriate order. However, in the impugned order, no such reassessment is forthcoming which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader while admitting the proposition of law that a fair opportunity is to be granted to the appellant/revision petitioner and in the absence of appellant/revision petitioner, the First Appellate Court has to reassess and pass appropriate orders. 11. She further contended that even after granting eleven adjournments, when learned counsel for the appellant/revision petitioner failed to appear before the Court, the impugned order is passed and submits to the Court that suitable order is to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, material on record especially the order sheet of the First Appellate Court, there is no doubt that the appellant/revision petitioner has neglected to address the arguments on merits of the matter. 14. Even in the absence of appellant/revision petitioner, the First Appellate Court is required to pass the judgment on merits by reassessing the material evidence on record. Said proposition of law was emphasized by this Court time and again including the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.1483/2004 in the case of Sri.Yelle Gowda @ Gundappa v. State reported in 2016 SCC Online KAR 35. 15. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant/revision petitioner that the approach of the First Appellate Court is not in conformity with the procedure in disposing of an appeal in the absence of appellant/revision petitioner. 16. It is noticed that no coercive steps are also taken by learned Judge in the First Appellate Court before passing the impugned order. Force of the First Appellate Court has not utilized the powers vested in it before passing the impugned order. Presence of the appellant/revision petitioner could have been secured by taking coercive steps including by issuing Non Bailable Warrant/proclamation to the appellant/revision petitioner and his sureties. 17. Force of the First Appellate Court has not utilized the powers vested in it before passing the impugned order. Presence of the appellant/revision petitioner could have been secured by taking coercive steps including by issuing Non Bailable Warrant/proclamation to the appellant/revision petitioner and his sureties. 17. Even after exhausting all that remedy, if the accused failed to appear, before passing the impugned order, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was required to provide assistance to the appellant/revision petitioner, a legal aid counsel, if the counsel for appellant/revision petitioner was not cooperating to proceed with the case on merits. No such efforts have been made by learned Judge in the First Appellate Court before passing the impugned order resulting in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, impugned order needs to be set aside. 18. Having said thus, conduct of the appellant/revision petitioner cannot also be lost sight of. It was his bounden duty to enquire his Advocate as to when his case is listed after he obtained the benefit of order of suspension of sentence. No reasons are forthcoming as to what steps that the appellant/revision petitioner has taken in this regard by contacting his Advocate. 19. Under such circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order and providing one more opportunity of fair trial to the appellant/revision petitioner, this Court deems it fit to impose a reasonable cost to the appellant/revision petitioner to further participate in the matter. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.626/2022 on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii. Matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. iv. Needless to emphasize that appellant/revision petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the First Appellate Court without waiting for notice from the First Appellate Court on 10.12.2024. v. Revision petitioner/appellant shall pay sum of Rs.10,000/- cost on or before 10.12.2024 to the State. vi. Payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- is condition precedent for further participation in the appeal on merits.