P.D. Rajan, J.

1. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a supervisory jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the inferior courts and satisfy itself the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the lower courts. From the nature of powers granted to the revisional court, it appears that the revisional court can act on its own motion or on the action of a stranger who may bring the matter to the court which the revisional court may not have known otherwise. The revision petitioners were charge sheeted in C.C. 737 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class I, Punalur for having committed an offence punishable under S. 143, 147,148, 447, 354, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 I.P.C. The charge against them was that on 16.5.2002 at 8.30 pm, revision petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon and in furtherance of their common object, assaulted PW 1 and PW 2, as a result they sustained serious injuries. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 9 and marked Ext. P1 to P10(a). The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They examined DW 1 and marked Ext. D1 in support of their evidence. Trial court convicted the revision petitioners and sentenced them. Against that they preferred Criminal Appeal 560 of 2005 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kollam which was dismissed by that court. Being aggrieved by that they preferred this Revision Petition.

2. I have heard both sides and perused the oral and documentary evidence. A close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that both courts below did not consider the relevant evidence and made a wrong appreciation in this case. It is true that appellants were not heard at the time of disposing the appeal. The date on which appeal was posted, the counsel was engaged in another court and he could not appear in the trial court. The judgment was pronounced on 10.7.2006. However on 6.7.2006, the counsel filed a petition which was not considered. This shows that many things which were found in the evidence are wrongly appreciated and several factors which would have favoured the accused were omitted by both the courts. When there is mis reading of evidence, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to rectify such illegality.

3. The procedure for hearing appeal has been prescribed under S. 385 of the Code. A reading of S. 385 makes it clear that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non appearance of the appellants or their counsel, if the court does not dismiss the appeal summarily. The court has either to postpone the case to enable them to appear or consider their appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders. The disposal of the appeal on merits will not be possible unless the reasoning and findings in the impugned judgment are analyzed by the appellate court in the light of the lower court's record. After obtaining the records, it is essential that the Appellate Court should peruse such record, hear the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and hear the public prosecutor, if he appears. This would indicate that if the appellant or his pleader is not present or if the public prosecutor is not present, there is no obligation to postpone the hearing of the appeal. The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal but disposal must be on merits, Therefore the appeal must be disposed of on merits irrespective of the facts whether the appellant or his counsel or the public prosecutor is present or not.

4. The powers of the appellate court in disposing of the appeal has been conferred under S.386 of the Code. According to that section, before exercising any of the powers the court must peruse the records of the case and hear the appellant or his pleader if he appears and the Public Prosecutor if he appears. A summary dismissal of the appeal will be legal if the appe