JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant is not present in person. Smt. Prerna Sharma appears for him. On 11.2.93, execution of his sentence was temporarily suspended for two months on condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of 5000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. He got himself released after complying with the aforesaid conditions. However, he did not surrender after the period of temporary suspension of the sentence was over. He has been, therefore, absconding since 11.4.1993. On 27.8.93 this Court forfeited the bail bonds and directed issue of notice to show cause as to why the bond amount be not recovered from him. Thereafter, warrants were issued from time to time for arrest of the appellant, for his production before this Court. All such efforts have not succeeded so far. In these circumstances, it is clear that the appellant is taking undue advantage of the leniency shown to him and is indulging in abuse of the process of law. His counsel cannot be allowed to represent him without his personal appearance before the Court in compliance of the bail bonds executed by him. 2. Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500 observe that the Court can dismiss the appeal in such circumstances for non-prosecution and enforce discipline. The Supreme Court also observes that if the appellants and their counsel do not appear when criminal appeals on called out, it will hamper the working of the Court and creates serious problem for the Court. In this case, the appellant is absconding with impunity and several efforts to get him arrested and produced in the Court have failed. In such circumstances, he cannot be permitted the luxury of continuing his appeal in absentia. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal regarding appellant Teja for non-prosecution. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara shall now take steps to secure the presence of the appellant Teja for serving out his sentence. The proceedings against the appellant Teja and the sureties consequent upon the forfeiture of the personal bond and for forfeiture of surety bonds shall proceed separately in this Court. 3. The appeal of accused Teja is dismissed. Now the appeal in respect of other appellant Khatara S/o Bharata Adivasi be fixed for hearing.Appeal rejected. *******