Criminal appeal must be decided on merits; one-line dismissal without amicus curiae was set aside and revived.

An unexplained delay of more than 2100 days in filing the revision petitions was not condoned because the accused had remained outside the process of law and offered an insufficient explanation. A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution simpliciter; it must be decided on merits after scrutiny of the record, and where the accused is absent the court should appoint amicus curiae before hearing the matter. The appellate court's one-line dismissal without such assistance or merits-based examination was set aside, and the criminal appeals were revived for fresh hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay in filing the revision petitions deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the appellate court's one-line dismissal of the criminal appeals, without appointing amicus curiae or examining the merits, was sustainable, and whether the appeals were liable to be revived for fresh hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay in filing the revision petitions deserved condonation.

Analysis: The revision petitions were filed after an unexplained delay of more than 2100 days. The accused had not appeared either at the time of sentence or before the appellate court, had not disclosed their whereabouts for years, and had remained outside the process of law after conviction. The explanation offered for the delay was found wholly insufficient, and discretionary relief was held to be unavailable to litigants who had shown disregard for the judicial process.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court's one-line dismissal of the criminal appeals, without appointing amicus curiae or examining the merits, was sustainable, and whether the appeals were liable to be revived for fresh hearing.

Analysis: A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution simpliciter and must be decided on merits after scrutiny of the record. Where the accused does not appear, the Court ought to appoint amicus curiae before proceeding with the hearing. The appellate court, despite noting the grounds of appeal, dismissed the matter without any real discussion, without testing the trial court's reasoning against the record, and without securing assistance through amicus curiae. That approach was held to be vague, unspecific, and contrary to the governing principles of criminal appellate adjudication.

Conclusion: The appellate orders were set aside and the appeals were revived for fresh hearing on merits.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions resulted in revival of the criminal appeals and a direction for de novo appellate consideration, while the request for condonation of the extraordinary delay was rejected. Ancillary directions for deposit and costs were also imposed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal appeal cannot be terminated for want of appearance without a merits-based scrutiny of the record, and where the accused is absent, the appellate court should appoint amicus curiae before deciding the appeal.

---