An appeal cannot be dismissed in default without ensuring the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the right to legal representation.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist/Sanjay Yadav and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 587 of 2024, as well as the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav versus Mithilesh Narayan Pandey), and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 1400 of 2020, Mithilesh Narain Pandey versus Sanjay Yadav, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist/accused has submitted that the revisionist was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 1400 of 2020, Mithilesh Narain Pandey versus Sanjay Yadav, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2022, the revisionist/accused preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Gorakhpur, vide Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav versus Mithilesh Narayan Pandey) within the period of limitation. The revisionist/accused was continuously in jail. The said criminal appeal was dismissed in default on 26.10.2023.

5. Thereafter, the revisionist/accused, Sanjay Yadav, filed another criminal appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 31.08.2024 for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2023, as well as for condonation of delay in filing another appeal after a period of eight months. The said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 587 of 2024. Hence, the present criminal revision.

6. The revisionist/accused Sanjay Yadav was convicted and sentenced on 20.05.2022. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022, which was dismissed in default on 26.10.2023. The dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 in default on account of absence of learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to law and is not in consonance with Section 425 of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 384 Cr.P.C.). Section 425 of B.N.S.S. is quoted herein below:

"425. Summary dismissal of appeal. (1) If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment received under section 423 or section 424, the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily:

Provided that-

(a) no appeal presented under section 423 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his advocate has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same;

(b) no appeal presented under section 424 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same, unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous or that the production of the accused in custody before the Court would involve such inconvenience as would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the case;

(c) no appeal presented under section 424 shall be dismissed summarily until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has expired.

(2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for the record of the case.

(3) Where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is