Criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for absence alone; court must appoint amicus curiae and decide the merits.

A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution merely because the accused or counsel is absent. The court must secure the assistance of an amicus curiae and decide the appeal on merits. Where the High Court dismisses the appeal only for want of representation without substantive examination, the dismissal is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal appeal could be dismissed for non-prosecution solely because the accused or counsel was absent, and whether the impugned dismissal order was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal was dismissed by the High Court only on account of absence of representation. The Court reaffirmed that in a criminal appeal, the absence of counsel does not justify dismissal for default; the proper course is to secure assistance of an amicus curiae and decide the matter on merits. Since the appeal was not examined substantively, the dismissal order could not stand.

Conclusion: The dismissal for non-prosecution was set aside and the criminal appeal was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution merely because the accused or counsel is absent; the court must proceed with the aid of amicus curiae and decide the appeal on merits.

---