Cr. Appeal No.278 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 15th December, 1993. Though the respondents were served, they did not put in appearance. Respondents No.2 & 3 finally put in appearance through counsel but respondent No.1 was declared a proclaimed offender in 1997. He was stated to be a resident of Uttar Pradesh but did not possess any property. The appeal was therefore ordered to be proceeded against respondents No.2 & 3 and as against respondent No.1 was adjourned sine die. The appeal against respondents No.2 & 3 stands dismissed vide judgment dated 25th May, 1999 but remained pending qua respondent No.1. It is apparent that the whereabouts of the respondent No.1 are not known to the State and, therefore, it is virtually not possible to take any coercive steps to procure the presence of the acquitted person. It is not known whether the respondent No.1 is dead or alive. The State has been unable to find out any information with regard to the respondent No.1. In such a situation, no purpose shall be served to keep the appeal pending. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and ordered to be consigned, with liberty reserved to the State to apply for revival of the appeal in case they can procure the presence of the accused. However, the record shall not be destroyed without specific order from the Court since we have given liberty to the State to apply for revival of the appeal. While disposing of the appeal, we are following the orders passed by the apex Court on 31st August, 2001 in Cr. Appeal No. 917 of 1997 titled State of H.P. vs. Satish Kumar. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. February 23, 2010 (rana)