Judgment 1. This appeal and the connected appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1998 are filed against the same judgment and order passed by the trial Court and, therefore, these two appeals are to be heard together. 2. Appellant No. 2, Maya Shankar Singh in this appeal stands convicted under S. 302 of the Penal Code. The rest of the three appellants, Daya Shankar Singh in this appeal and two other appellants in the connected appeal were convicted under Ss. 302/34 of the Penal Code. Both Maya Shankar Singh and Daya Shankar Singh were further convicted under S. 27 of the Arms Act. All the appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for committing murder and the two appellants in this appeal are further sentenced to three years R.I. for the offence under the Arms Act. 3. The two appellants in the connected appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 1998 were granted bail by this Court. In this appeal, however, the prayer for bail on behalf of both the appellants was rejected, in the case of Maya Shankar Singh, his prayers for bail were rejected more than once. 4. When the appeals were called out for hearing Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, counsel appearing for the informant filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the appellant-Maya Shankar Singh had escaped from jail custody during the pendency of the appeal and had not yet been apprehended. 5. Mr. Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in the two appeals did not deny the fact. He stated that in connection with some other case, Maya Shankar Singh had to be produced in Court and he escaped in course of his production from the jail to the Court concerned. He admitted that he had neither surrendered nor was he arrested since then. 6. Mr. Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, counsel for the informant and Mr. Ganesh Pd. Jaiswal. Addl. P.P., appearing for the State suggested that the hearing of the two appeals be adjourned and direction be issued to the trial Court and the police authorities to apprehend the escapee Maya Shankar Singh and the hearing of the appeals be taken up only after he is taken back in custody. 7. The course suggested by the counsel does not commend itself to the Court. 7. The course suggested by the counsel does not commend itself to the Court. We feel that adjourning the hearing of the case indefinitely, awaiting the arrest of Maya Shankar Singh would unduly penalise the other appellants (one of whom Daya Shankar Singh continues to be in jail, his prayer for bail having been rejected) and would also amount to putting a premium on acts of defiance to the Court and the system of administration of criminal justice. 8. Counsel appearing for the different parties in the two appeals submitted that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no provision for summary dismissal of an appeal after it was admitted for hearing. Mr. Jaiswal also invited the attention of the Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439 : (1996 Cri LJ 3491). In Bani Singh, the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding disposal of a criminal appeal when both the appellant and his lawyer remained absent from the Court. The facts of the present case are fundamentally different. In the case of the present appellant-Maya Shankar Singh, this Court had neither suspended his sentence nor was he directed to be released on bail. In fact his prayers for bail were repeatedly rejected by this Court. Caring little for the orders passed by the Court and the provisions of law, he escaped from custody. His act can only be described as brazen defiance to law and the system of criminal administration of justice and we have no doubt that he is not entitled to any indulgence from the Courts. 9. Chapter XII of the High Court Rules deals with the procedure in criminal cases. Rule 8 under that chapter reads as follows : "No appeal against conviction, application or motion shall be heard for admission unless the accused has surrendered to the order of the Court below convicting him to a sentence of imprisonment for a term and an intimation to this effect has been filed, except in case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial Court." 10. The rule which is statutory in nature uses negative language that forbids the hearing of an appeal (for admission) in the absence of intimation of surrender except in case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial Court. The rule which is statutory in nature uses negative language that forbids the hearing of an appeal (for admission) in the absence of intimation of surrender except in case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial Court. It would be futile to argue that the prohibition that applies at the stage of admission would not apply to the hearing of the appeal and once the appeal is admitted, it is open to the appellant to merrily break the jail and escape from custody. This Court does not have the slightest doubt that the intimation of surrender which is a pre-condition and sine qua non for hearing of the appeal at the stage of admission is equally the pre-condition and sine qua non for hearing of the appeal for its final disposal on merits. The appeal preferred by the appellant Maya Shankar Singh does not comply with the legal requirement and his appeal, therefore, is not fit to be heard, unless the intimation of surrender is filed on his behalf. 11. The counsel for appellant Maya Shankar Singh is, therefore, allowed fifteen dayss time for filing intimation of surrender on his behalf failing which his appeal may be dismissed without considering it on merits. The Court shall then proceed to hear the appeal on behalf of the rest of the appellants. At that stage, the Court may direct the trial Court and the concerned authorities in the police to take steps, including coercive measures, for his arrest. But his arrest may not revive his appeal. His arrest at that stage shall not be for hearing his appeal on merits but to make him undergo the sentence imposed upon him by law. 12. It may be noted here that there are two Vakalatnamas on record given by the appellant Maya Shankar Singh. Both of them are subsisting. One is in favour of Mr. Humayun Ahmad Khan, Advocate and the other in favour of Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates. This order is passed in presence of counsel holding subsisting vakalatnamas on his behalf. This would constitute sufficient notice to the concerned appellant. 13. Put up after three weeks or on the filing of intimation of surrender whichever being earlier. Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1988 14. Amrendra Kumar, Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates. This order is passed in presence of counsel holding subsisting vakalatnamas on his behalf. This would constitute sufficient notice to the concerned appellant. 13. Put up after three weeks or on the filing of intimation of surrender whichever being earlier. Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1988 14. Seen the office note dated 7-4-2004 from which it appears that intimation of surrender has not been filed on behalf of Maya Shankar Singh appellant No. 2 in this appeal who has escaped from jail custody. 15. No one appears for the appellants. Put up on July 19, 2004. 16. On that date, the Court will pass orders concerning Maya Shankar Singh in the light of the previous order, dated 17-3-2004 and will proceed to hear the appeal on behalf of the rest of the appellants. 17. In case counsel engaged by the appellants do not appear on that date, the Court will proceed with the hearing of the appeal by appointing some one as Amicus Curiae. 18. This is in continuation with the orders dated 17-3-2004 and 16-7-2004. 19. The appeal on behalf of Maya Shankar Singh, appellant No. 2 is dismissed for failure to file intimation of surrender as directed by order dated 17-3-2004. 20. Though Maya Shankar Singhs appeal is dismissed without reference to its merit, it needs to be clearly stated that the dismissal of the case is not for default, that is, non-appearance of the lawyer representing him. The dismissal of the appeal is for a far basic reason. 21. The prayer for bail made on behalf of Maya Shankar Singh was rejected at the time of admission of the appeal. Prayer for bail later made during the pendency of the appeal were similarly rejected. He, however, escaped while he was being taken from jail to the Court for production in another case. He remains absconding till date. 22. When the appeal was first taken up for hearing on 17-3-2004 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the informant stating about his escape from jail. This fact was also admitted by Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate who appeared for him on that date. On 17-3-2004 the Court recorded an order directing the counsel for the appellant Maya Shankar Singh to file intimation of his surrender within three weeks from that date. This fact was also admitted by Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate who appeared for him on that date. On 17-3-2004 the Court recorded an order directing the counsel for the appellant Maya Shankar Singh to file intimation of his surrender within three weeks from that date. In that order it was also stated that failure to file intimation of surrender would lead to the dismissal of the appeal on his behalf without reference to its merit. 23. The Court took the view that unless an intimation of his surrender was filed the appeal on his behalf was not competent to be heard on merits on two grounds; one, that his act in escaping from jail, though his prayers for bail was repeatedly rejected by this Court, was a wilful, deliberate and gross violation of the judicial process and it amounted to a defiance of the system of criminal administration of justice and he was, therefore, not entitled to any indulgence from the Court. The second ground was that the appeal on his behalf was not competent to be heard in terms of Rule 8 under Chapter XII of the Patna High Court Rules, that lays down in mandatory terms that in case the appellant had not been released on bail the appeal could not be heard in the absence of intimation of surrender. Both the aforesaid reasons are discussed in detail in the previous order dated 17-3-2004. 24. On 17-3-2004 the Court allowed Maya Shankar Singh three weeks time to surrender. The case was again called out for hearing on 16-7-2004. From the office note dated 7-4-2004 it appears that no intimation of his surrender was filed within the time allowed by the Court. Today though more than four months has expired both the counsel appearing for the appellants and the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant informed the Court that Maya Shankar Singh has not cared to surrender. In these circumstances Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1998 in so far as it is on behalf of Maya Shankar Singh, appellant No. 2 stands dismissed. It shall now proceed only in respect of appellant No. 1 Daya Shankar Singh who continues to remain in jail. 25. In these circumstances Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1998 in so far as it is on behalf of Maya Shankar Singh, appellant No. 2 stands dismissed. It shall now proceed only in respect of appellant No. 1 Daya Shankar Singh who continues to remain in jail. 25. The trial Court and the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai are directed to take all steps to secure the arrest of Maya Shankar Singh to make him under go the sentence given to him by the trial Court.