1. This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 of CrPC against the judgment and sentence dated 31.7.2004 passed by Special Judge, Shivpuri, in Special S.T. No.59/2003 by which they have been convicted under section 365 of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment.

2. Before proceeding with the facts of the case and considering the appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to refer to the fact about the attempt on the part of the appellants to avoid the hearing of the appeal.

3. The appellants were granted bail by this Court by order dated 3.1.2005. Thereafter, the case was listed for final hearing on 26.2.2013, and at the request of the counsel for the appellants, the hearing of the case was adjourned. None appeared on 7.3.2013, therefore, SPC was issued to the appellants. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on 26.3.2013. The hearing of the case was adjourned on 26.4.2013 as again neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared before the Court. On 17.4.2015, again the counsel for the appellants sought time to argue the matter and accordingly, the hearing of the case was deferred. On 1.9.2016, time was sought to argue the case. None appears today to argue the matter. The appeal is of the year 2004 and is listed under the category “High Court Expedited Cases.” The name of the counsel for the appellants was flashed on the display board continuously, but none appears. Thus, under these circumstances, it is clear that the appellants are avoiding the hearing of the case.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2014)14SCC 222, has held as under :-

“24. It seems to us that it is necessary for the appellate Court which is confronted with the absence of the convict as well as his counsel, to immediately proceed against the persons who stood surety at the time when the convict was granted bail, as this may lead to his discovery and production in Court. If even this exercise fails to locate and bring forth the convict, the appellate Court is empowered to dismiss the appeal. We fully and respectfully concur with the recent elucidation of the law, profound yet perspicuous, in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, [(2013)3 SCC 721]. After a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions our learned Brother had distilled the legal position into six propositions: (SCC p.734, para 19) :

“19.1. that the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits;

19.2. that the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent;

19.3. that the Court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;

19.4. that it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial Court.

19.5. that if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to Court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the Court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the Court from doing so; and

19.6. that if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher Court can remedy the situation.”

25. The enunciation of the inherent powers of the High Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction already articulated by this Court on several occasions motivates us to press section 482 into operation. We reiterate that there is an alarming and sinister increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals apparently with a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded against them. The routine is to file an appeal, apply and get enlarged on bail or get exempted from surrender, and thereafter wi