JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. 1. Present appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), filed by the appellants - original accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/02/1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals @ Godhra in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1994 (Atrocity), whereby, they came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section 26(d) of the Indian Forests Act, 1921 (for brevity, 'the Forests Act) and for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC, the accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months and for the offence punishable under Section 26(d)of the Forests Act, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the parties are, hereinafter, referred to as per their original status. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22/09/1994 at about 10:00 p.m. in the sim of villages: Daruniya and Samlina, in the reserved forest area, the accused allegedly have been grazing their buffaloes, about 40 in number, and with a view to interrupt and restrain the complainant and others from performing their duties, they, in the aid and abetment of each other, caused grievous injuries to the complainant with stick blows on different parts of the body and also abused the complainant and others. They also threatened them to death. Moreover, the accused allegedly abused the complainant of his caste knowing fully well that the complainant was belonging to the reserved caste. They also threatened them to death. Moreover, the accused allegedly abused the complainant of his caste knowing fully well that the complainant was belonging to the reserved caste. Thus, the accused committed the offence alleged against them, for which a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Section 26(d) of the Forests Act and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be lodged against them. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 2.2 At the end of the trial, Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code were recorded in which, they pleaded not guilty and false implication. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statements and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid, by impugned judgment and order giving rise to prefer the present appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Nilesh I. Jani, the learned advocate for the appellants - accused and Ms. Reeta Chandarana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Following order was passed by this Court on 04/03/1998, while admitting the present appeal: "Admit. Appellants No. 2 and 3 Bhavanbhai Nagjibhai Bharwad and Haribhai @ Haria Kamu respectively shall be released on the same bail and fresh bond. With regard appellant No. 1 Bhemabhai Bholabhai Bharwad question of bail will be considered on returnable date. Notice with regard to that prayer, returnable on 12-3-98. Service of Notice is waived by Mr. S.P. Dave, Ld. A.P.P. for the respondent State." 4.1 On 12/03/1998, following order was passed: "Mr. M.R. Shah learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in so far as the three accused are concerned, the fine has been deposited in the Trial Court. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. S.P. Dave, Ld. A.P.P. for the respondent State." 4.1 On 12/03/1998, following order was passed: "Mr. M.R. Shah learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in so far as the three accused are concerned, the fine has been deposited in the Trial Court. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. In so far the prayer of bail in respect of the appellant No. 1 is concerned, the appellant No. 1 is stated to be aged around 19 years. He was on bail during the course of trial. Learned advocate for the appellants and learned A.P.P. submit that reasoned order may not be passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant No. 1 Bhemabhai Bholabhai Bharwad is directed to be released on the same bail but fresh bond." 4.2 As the learned advocate appearing for the appellants elevated to the bench, following order was passed by this Court on 10/07/2015: "As the learned advocate appearing for the applicants at the relevant point of time has now been elevated to the Bench, Notice be issued to the applicants, making it returnable on 31st July 2015." 4.3 After 31/07/2015, till date, several efforts have been made to serve the notice issued vide order passed by this Court on 10/07/2015 upon the appellants - accused but it could not be served and various reports to that effect have been forthcoming on record. Meanwhile, Mr. Nilesh I. Jani has filed his appearance on behalf of the appellants - accused through legal aid. He submitted that he has also made several efforts to locate the appellants - accused and secure their presence but he could not succeed. Bailable Warrants issued against the present appellants have also returned unserved as per the report of the concerned Police Station. They have recorded the statements of Maheshbhai Laxmanbhai Bariya and Ajabhai Bhurabhai Bharwad of the same village i.e. Daruniya and they have disclosed that the present appellants had constructed a house illegally on the forest land and hence, in the year 2002 the said house was demolished by the forest department and therefore, they had left the village with family and now, no family member of the appellants is residing in the said village. To that effect, the Sarpanch of the village: Daruniya has also issued a certificate dated 26/04/2016. Mr. To that effect, the Sarpanch of the village: Daruniya has also issued a certificate dated 26/04/2016. Mr. Jani, the learned advocate for the appellants, showed his helplessness to proceed with the final hearing of the matter in absence of any instructions from the appellants. 5. Considering the above position, the guidelines given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nirav Devnarayan Shukla and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2016 (2) G.L.H. (F.B.) 128 will throw some light to meet with such a situation. Relevant paras 16 and 17 of the same are extracted hereunder: "16. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court while dealing with a conviction appeal wherein convict/advocate is/are not available, following procedure is required to be considered at the time of final hearing: (i) If the Advocate appearing for the appellant - convict is present and is ready to proceed with the appeal, the Court has to decide the same on merits and reasoned judgment is to be delivered even if the convict is absconding. It is needless to say that the convict should always be subjected to consequences of his abscondence. (ii) If the convict is absconding and his advocate is absent, and if the convict has jumped the bail/temporary bail granted by the High Court, High Court itself, shall take recourse provided under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code to secure the presence of absconding convict and can issue non-bailable warrant, passing orders of attachment of his property declaring him proclaimed offender, etc. under sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After exhausting all possible effort if the convict could not be traced out and if the High Court is satisfied and is of the opinion that the convict is recalcitrant and has shown total disrespect to the orders passed by the High Court and has jumped the bail/temporary bail, the High Court can exercise its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Code and can dismiss the appeal. (iii) If the convict was released pursuant to orders passed by the concerned Department of the State/Jail authority (like furlough leave, etc.) and is not available at the time of hearing of the appeal, the jail authority shall submit a detailed report to the High Court about the steps undertaken by the concerned Department/Jail authority to secure the presence of the absconding convict. If the High Court is satisfied with the said report and comes to the conclusion that the convict is recalcitrant and has shown disrespect to the judicial system, his appeal can be dismissed. (iv) If the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-availability of convict and subsequently if the convict surrenders or is arrested, he may file application for restoration of his appeal for hearing the same on merits. 17. It is needless to say that if the Bench comes across a criminal appeal, wherein it finds that the case of absconding convict does not fall in any of the above referred contingencies, it can exercise its inherent powers provided under section 482 of the Code, which would entitle it to make such orders, as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice." 6. Thus, though learned advocate Mr. Jani appointed by the legal aid committee is present but he is unable to proceed with the matter for want of any instructions from the appellants and accordingly, this Court is also unable to proceed with the final hearing and to decide the case on merits by delivering the reasoned judgment. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, there is no sense in keeping this appeal alive on the board when it appears that all the efforts made by all the concerned to locate and to trace out the appellants herein have failed and accordingly, present appeal requires to be dismissed by passing the following final order. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly only on the ground that the appellants herein - original accused are not available, with the observation that if they surrender or are arrested, they may move an appropriate application for restoration of this appeal for final hearing of the same on merits. Since, the appellants - original accused are not-available, non-bailable warrants are ordered to be issued against them till they are arrested. Their bail bonds, if any, shall accordingly stand cancelled. Since, the appellants - original accused are not-available, non-bailable warrants are ordered to be issued against them till they are arrested. Their bail bonds, if any, shall accordingly stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith. A copy of this order be supplied to the trial Court concerned as well as the concerned Police Station for compliance.