1. This appeal and the connected appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1998 are filed against the same judgment and order passed by the trial Court and, therefore, these two appeals are to be heard together.

2. Appellant No. 2, Maya Shankar Singh in this appeal stands convicted under S. 302 of the Penal Code. The rest of the three appellants, Daya Shankar Singh in this appeal and two other appellants in the connected appeal were convicted under Ss. 302/34 of the Penal Code. Both Maya Shankar Singh and Daya Shankar Singh were further convicted under S. 27 of the Arms Act. All the appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for committing murder and the two appellants in this appeal are further sentenced to three years R.I. for the offence under the Arms Act.

3. The two appellants in the connected appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 1998 were granted bail by this Court. In this appeal, however, the prayer for bail on behalf of both the appellants was rejected, in the case of Maya Shankar Singh, his prayers for bail were rejected more than once.

4. When the appeals were called out for hearing Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, counsel appearing for the informant filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the appellant-Maya Shankar Singh had escaped from jail custody during the pendency of the appeal and had not yet been apprehended.

5. Mr. Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in the two appeals did not deny the fact. He stated that in connection with some other case, Maya Shankar Singh had to be produced in Court and he escaped in course of his production from the jail to the Court concerned. He admitted that he had neither surrendered nor was he arrested since then.

6. Mr. Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, counsel for the informant and Mr. Ganesh Pd. Jaiswal. Addl. P.P., appearing for the State suggested that the hearing of the two appeals be adjourned and direction be issued to the trial Court and the police authorities to apprehend the escapee Maya Shankar Singh and the hearing of the appeals be taken up only after he is taken back in custody.

7. The course suggested by the counsel does not commend itself to the Court. We feel that adjourning the hearing of the case indefinitely, awaiting the arrest of Maya Shankar Singh would unduly penalise the other appellants (one of whom Daya Shankar Singh continues to be in jail, his prayer for bail having been rejected) and would also amount to putting a premium on acts of defiance to the Court and the system of administration of criminal justice.

8. Counsel appearing for the different parties in the two appeals submitted that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no provision for summary dismissal of an appeal after it was admitted for hearing. Mr. Jaiswal also invited the attention of the Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439 : (1996 Cri LJ 3491). In Bani Singh, the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding disposal of a criminal appeal when both the appellant and his lawyer remained absent from the Court. The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. In the case of the present appellant-Maya Shankar Singh, this Court had neither suspended his sentence nor was he directed to be released on bail. In fact his prayers for bail were repeatedly rejected by this Court. Caring little for the orders passed by the Court and the provisions of law, he escaped from custody. His act can only be described as brazen defiance to law and the system of criminal administration of justice and we have no doubt that he is not entitled to any indulgence from the Courts.

9. Chapter XII of the High Court Rules deals with the procedure in criminal cases. Rule 8 under that chapter reads as follows :

"No appeal against conviction, application or motion shall be heard for admission unless the accused has surrendered to the order of the Cou