JUDGMENT The applicant is Manmohan Lal. His son-in-law Vikram and one Sohan Lal had forcibly entered his house in Kikarwala Rupa, Police Station Khui Khera, District Ferozepur, on June 3, 2007 Vikram and Sohan Lal inflicted gun shot injuries on Manmohan Lal and the members of his family and escaped. FIR 59 was registered at Police Station Khui Khera on June 4, 2007 under Sections 450/307/325 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Vikram and Sohan Lal were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. They were both found guilty and convicted under various sections of Indian Penal Code. Vikram was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and other lesser concurrent sentences for other offences. Sohan Lal received maximum sentence of five years under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and other concurrent sentences. Vikram has filed Crl. Appeal 776 DB of 2008 which is pending. 3. On February 25, 2009 Vikram escaped from police custody. This happened at 5.30 p.m. when Vikram had been taken in custody to Sirsa being produced before a court at Sirsa on the following day. FIR 15 dated February 26, 2009 was registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. under Section 223/224 Indian Penal Code in respect of Vikrams escape. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal 776 DB of 2008 on the ground that Vikram has escaped from custody and is absconding. 5. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vijay s/o Suryabhanji Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(2) MHLJ 39. In this case, the appellant had also absconded. The Court hearing the appeal held that the appeal should be dismissed because the right of appeal was a statutory right and the appellant had shown that he had no regard for the courts orders and did not care about the judicial system. The Court also observed that if the appeal is heard when the accused is absconding and it ultimately results in acquittal then "it will create a very bad picture before the persons facing criminal trial because they will carry an impression that their matter can be heard even if they abscond and they can get acquittal." 6. The Court also observed that if the appeal is heard when the accused is absconding and it ultimately results in acquittal then "it will create a very bad picture before the persons facing criminal trial because they will carry an impression that their matter can be heard even if they abscond and they can get acquittal." 6. Vikrams appeal is under the provisions of Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code Sub-section (2) provides that any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in which sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court. The powers of the Appellate Court are given in Section 386 Criminal Procedure Code Under sub clause (b), the Appellate Court can, in an appeal from a conviction, pass any of the following orders :- (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same; 7. The Appellate Court, after perusing the record and hearing the appellant or his pleader may, if it consider that there is no sufficient ground for interference, dismiss the appeal, or pass any of the above enumerated orders. We fail to understand how an Appellate Court can dismiss the appeal without hearing the appellant or his pleader, simply on the ground that the appellant has absconded. The reason given by the Bombay High Court in Vijays case (supra) dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had absconded, does not impress us at all. Abscondence of an appellant can never be a ground for dismissal of his appeal. 8. If Vikram is alive he has a right to argue that he was innocent and seek any of the above mentioned reliefs. Simply because he is absconding, his right cannot be taken away. 9. As it has been brought to our notice that Vikram is in fact absconding and appears to have escaped from custody, State of Punjab is directed to step up its efforts to apprehend Vikram and proceed against him in accordance with law. Simply because he is absconding, his right cannot be taken away. 9. As it has been brought to our notice that Vikram is in fact absconding and appears to have escaped from custody, State of Punjab is directed to step up its efforts to apprehend Vikram and proceed against him in accordance with law. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, shall personally supervise this case. Crl. Misc. stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.