Cr. Appeal No.360 of 1993 23.2.2010 Present: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the appellant-State. This appeal was admitted on 30th December, 1993. Earlier also the respondent did not appear and non-bailable warrants had to be issued to procure his presence. Thereafter the matter was heard. Since the accused was not represented, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate was appointed amicus curiae for the respondent. After hearing, the accused was convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was adjourned to 8th May, 2008. Thereafter, the accused could not be heard on the question of sentence. Despite number of opportunities having been granted the accused could not be served and proclamation was issued which has been published and the accused has been declared to be a proclaimed offender. In such circumstances, we are compelled to pass sentence on the accused without giving any opportunity to him. The accused has been convicted of a heinous offence, minimum sentence for which is 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Except for the delay in disposing of the appeal we find no reason to award any lesser sentence to the accused. Accordingly, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The appeal is disposed of. It be consigned to records. However, since this order has been passed in the absence of the accused, the record of the case shall not be destroyed without specific order from the Court. Cr.MP(M) No. 71/2008 Show cause notices were issued to the accused since his bail bonds were forfeited. The accused has not put in appearance and the State has failed to give the particulars of any property of the accused. Therefore, there is no use of keeping this petition pending which is disposed of at this stage. The State however is at liberty to file a fresh application in case it can trace out the property, if any, of the accused. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. February 23, 2010 (rana)