Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 2007 22.10.2008 Present: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals for the Appellant-State. This appeal was admitted on 12th March, 2007 and since then various opportunities have been given to the appellant-State to serve the respondent. The respondent-accused is a citizen of Nepal. The record reveals that despite innumerable opportunities granted, the State has been unable to procure the presence of the accused. The warrants sent to the accused on the address given in the appeal were returned back with the report that the respondent does not reside at the given address. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Registry on 13th July, 2007, 9th August, 2007, 17th September, 2007, 12th October, 2007. On 12th November, 2007 a communication was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, mentioning that the warrants could not be served on the respondent who is a resident of Nepal. Thereafter, fresh bailable warrants were issued giving longer time to serve the same in terms of the prayer made by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The matter was listed on 25th February, 2008, 20th March, 2008, 22nd April, 2008, 28th May, 2008, 7th July, 2008, 1st September, 2008 and 15th October, 2008. On 15th October, 2008 a communication has been received from the Embassy of India, Kathmandu (Nepal) informing that warrants/summons/notices received from foreign countries cannot be executed in Nepal as per the existing law of Nepal. Therefore, the warrants have been received back unserved. It is apparent that whereabouts of the respondent 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 is dead or alive. The State has not been able to find out any information with regard to the respondent. In such a situation, no purpose shall be served to keep the appeal pending. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty reserved to the State to apply for revival of the appeal in case they can procure the presence of the accused. While dismissing 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. October 22, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja), J. ™