What does not appear, is not.
According to the maxim ‘Quod non apparet, no est’ what does not appear, is not. It legal sense it means that if something is not prima facia not apparent, then it cannot be assumed to be present.
‘A’ was accused of stealing; however he was not present in the country when the incident of theft took place. By the facts it is not primia facia not apparent that ‘A’ might have committed the offence of theft and thus the maxim of ‘Quod non apparet, non est’ does applies.
Weerasooriya v. Weerasooriya
In the above mentioned case, honourable Supreme Court of Srilanka referred the maxim ‘ Quod non Apparet, non est. 
Daniels v. Tearney
In the above-mentioned case, honourable Supreme Court of United States referred the maxim ‘Quoad non Apparet, non est’. 
Hanmantrav & Anr. v. The Secretary of State of India
In the above-mentioned case, honourable Bombay High Court referred the maxim ‘Quoad non Apparet, non est’.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Weerasooriya v. Weerasooriya, 1910 SCC Online SL SC 81.
 Daniels v.Tearney, 102 US 415 (1880).
 Hanmantrav & Anr. v. The Secretary of State of India, 1900 SCC OnLine Bom 26