Inherent criminal jurisdiction permits dismissal of an appeal by an absconding convict after reasonable steps to secure attendance.

The High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice by dismissing a criminal appeal where a convict, after bail or exemption from surrender, wilfully absconds and shows no intention to prosecute the appeal, provided reasonable steps are first taken to secure attendance, including action against sureties. The rule applicable to inadvertent absence or absence of counsel cannot be mechanically extended to deliberate evasion. The text also states that a merits-based disposal without appointing an amicus curiae or remanding the matter is not necessarily erroneous where the appellate court has otherwise discharged its duty on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court can invoke its inherent power to dismiss a criminal appeal where the convict, after obtaining bail or exemption from surrender, wilfully absents himself and evades prosecution of the appeal; (ii) whether, on the facts of the case, the High Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits without appointing an amicus curiae or remanding the matter.

Issue (i): whether the High Court can invoke its inherent power to dismiss a criminal appeal where the convict, after obtaining bail or exemption from surrender, wilfully absents himself and evades prosecution of the appeal.

Analysis: The appellate provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not exhaust the powers of the High Court. The inherent jurisdiction preserved by Section 482 enables the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Where a convict deliberately avoids appearance and shows no intention to prosecute the appeal, the Court may first take coercive steps to secure attendance, including proceeding against sureties. If those steps fail, dismissal of the appeal is permissible. The rule in cases dealing with absence of counsel or unintentional absence cannot be mechanically extended to deliberate abscondence after the grant of bail.

Conclusion: The High Court is empowered to dismiss such an appeal in appropriate cases after taking steps to secure the appellant's presence; such dismissal is not barred by the Code.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts of the case, the High Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits without appointing an amicus curiae or remanding the matter.

Analysis: The impugned order showed that the High Court had examined the evidence and decided the appeal on merits. The requirement to appoint an amicus curiae is not absolute where the Court has otherwise discharged its appellate duty. The record did not justify remand, and the Court found no legal infirmity in the approach adopted by the High Court.

Conclusion: No error was found in the High Court's merits-based disposal on the record before it, and remand was declined; the appellant was, however, given an opportunity to argue the appeal on merits.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the availability of inherent criminal jurisdiction to curb abuse of appellate process by absconding convicts, while in the present matter the appellant was permitted to proceed to final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits the High Court to prevent abuse of the appellate process and secure the ends of justice, including dismissing a criminal appeal where a convict wilfully evades prosecution after taking advantage of bail or exemption from surrender, once reasonable steps have been taken to secure his presence.

---