1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2005. Union of India, Through the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai. ... Appellant. Versus 1. M/s Pythagoras, Communication Systems Pvt. Ltd. Beta Towers, Crescent Road, Bangalore  1. 2. Shri M. S. Suresh, Managing Director, M/s Pythagoras Communication Systems Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore  1. ... Respondents. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor. Mr. S. A. Samant, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Coram : R. M. SAVANT, J. Date : 11 th March, 2010. ORDER The above Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Union of India through the C.B.I. against the judgment and order dated 3.10.2003 of the learned 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in Criminal case No. 493/S/91 whereby the accused i.e. respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein came to be acquitted. 2. The respondents were charge sheeted under Section 420, 468, 471 and 511 of I.P.C. and Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The above appeal has been adjourned from time to time at the behest of the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants above named as also at the behest of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents so that they could ascertain the whereabout of the respondent No. 2 who was at the relevant time the Managing Director of the respondent No.1. 3. Inspite of the time taken and efforts made by both the Counsel, the whereabouts of the respondent No. 2 could not be ascertained, the bailable warrant issued against him also could not be executed. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri Samant, stated that the last contact with the respondent No. 2 was almost a year back when he was informed that respondent No. 2 was afflicted by a heart ailment, on account of which a pace maker had to be installed in his body. The learned Counsel further submitted that inspite of numerous efforts being made by him to contact respondent No. 2 on telephone, no contact could be established. The learned Counsel therefore fears for the worst. He further states that to the best of his knowledge, the respondent No. 1 was under liquidation and in the intervening period the company might have been wound up. 3 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Ferreira states that his officers have also made earnest efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent No. 2 at Bangalore but they have failed in their attempts. In the light of what has been stated by learned Counsel for the parties, it would not be possible to proceed with the above Appeal in the absence of the information as regards the whereabouts of the respondent, as both the learned Counsel are ad-idem that in the absence of the respondent No. 2 it would be a futile exercise. 5. As mentioned hereinabove, The Appeal in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be proceeded with and it would have to stand disposed of on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is not available, with liberty to the Appellant to revive the above Appeal in the event the whereabouts of the respondent No. 2 become known. The learned Counsel for the respondent makes a statement that in the event any information is received by him as regards the respondent, the same would be forwarded to the Appellants above named through Shri Ferreira. 6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. R. M. SAVANT, J. MF/-