Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. In these batch of State appeals, respondents/accused have either been acquitted by the trial court or the State is seeking enhancement of sentence. It has not been possible to complete service of the respondents/accused in these appeals. The question arising for consideration is whether with respondent/accused remaining unserved, the appeals can be heard by following the procedure of declaring them proclaimed offenders and appointing an Amicus Curiae to represent their interest? The second class of case is where the respondents/accused were served at the stage of leave to appeal or after grant of leave but are not appearing thereafter. The procedure to be adopted in the latter class of cases is to be considered.

2. Before we consider the legal position in relation to the questions raised, it would be appropriate to set out the factual matrix in each of these appeals:

(i) Crl.A.No. 597/99, State v. Ram Gopal

Respondent Ram Gopal, son of Ram Parkash, Village & PO Nawab Ganj, Dish. Gonda( D.P.) had been tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Trial court on the evidence adduced, held that it could not be said that it was the respondent who had caused injury to deceased persons. The Court did not find evidence of the eye witness reliable and trustworthy and acquitted the respondent. State. preferred the above appeal against acquittal. Vide orders dated 5.11.1999, delay in filing of the appeal was condoned, leave to appeal was granted and appeal itself was admitted. Bailable warrants against the respondent in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- were directed to be issued returnable on 22.2.2000. The bailable warrants issued were received back unserved. Repeated attempts to execute bailable and non-bailable warrants on the respondent failed. Repeated adjournments numbering over 22 were given between 22.2.2000. to 4.4.2005. It has been reported by the police that respondent had not visited his village for the last 13 years and his house/jhuggi stood dilapidated and virtually demolished. Parents of respondent had already died. Proceedings for declaring the respondent as a proclaimed offender have been completed by affixing a proclamation next to his jhuggi. Respondent has thus been declared a proclaimed offender enabling his arrest at any time without a warrant.

(ii) Crl.A.No. 50.6/20.0.3, State v. Shamshad

Respondent/ accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 363/366/376 IPC. Vide judgment dated 17.10.1998, trial court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of occurrence and had failed to lead evidence regarding age, based on X-ray and other tests carried out. Trial court held that prosecutrix was in love with the respondent/ accused and had wil1ingly gone with him. Holding that prosecution had failed to prove guilt of accused, he• was acquitted. Appeal was preferred with an application for condonation of delay in which notice was issued. From August,2001 to March,2002, accused/respondent could not be served. Service report was that respondent had sold his house and land and left without leaving any address. Interestingly on 23.4.2002, one counsel Mr. Vilas Shan appeared on behalf of respondent. Directions were issued for paper book to be supplied to him. Respondent was thereafter represented by counsel on 15.7.2002 and 23.10.200.2. On 24.7.2003, when none appeared on behalf of respondent, the application for condonation of delay was allowed and leave to appeal was granted. Pursuant to grant of leave to appeal, directions were issued to the respondent to furnish bond to secure appearance in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. An application was also moved by the respondent for recalling the order of grant of leave to appeal, which was passed in his absence as also the order condoning the delay in filing appeal. The application was dismissed as having been preferred without any instructions. Non-bailable warrants were also issued against the respondent which have rem