JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 21.1.2012 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No.6-S/7 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yuvraj, challenging the acquittal of respondent Yuvraj (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who has been charged for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Vide order dated 18.6.2013, this Court ordered issuance of open-dated non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the accused, through the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. The said warrant has been received back unexecuted with the report that respondent is not traceable. The respondent is a native of Nepal. 3. We have heard Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State and also gone through the records. 4. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.12.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2006, titled as State versus Man Bahadur, held as under: ‘‘This appeal was admitted on 2.5.2006. Respondent is native of Nepal. Bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the respondent and it was sent to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for execution as the respondent is stated to have left country for his native country Nepal. Warrant has been received back unexecuted with a letter from Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, with the report that the warrant was sent to Indian Embassy at Kathmandu and the Embassy has returned the same with a report that in the past when warrants, summons, notices etc. were sent to the Government of Nepal for service/execution, the same were received back, with the remarks that warrants, summons notices received from other countries cannot be served/executed in Nepal, as per the existing law of Nepal. By following the precedent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.917 of 1997 decided on 31st August, 2001, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, because no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending. However, liberty is reserved to the State to get the appeal revived if it happens to secure the presence of respondent.’’ 5. Satish Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.917 of 1997 decided on 31st August, 2001, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, because no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending. However, liberty is reserved to the State to get the appeal revived if it happens to secure the presence of respondent.’’ 5. In view of the fact that service of the respondent is not feasible in the foreign country, i.e. Nepal as also the decision of this Court in Man Bahadur (supra), we dispose of the present appeal for want of prosecution, because no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the same pending. 6. However, we make very specific observation that liberty is always open to the State to get the present Criminal Appeal 312 of 2012 revived, if the State happens to secure presence of the accused in future. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.