# Dwarika & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2389 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dwarika-anr-v-state-of-u-p-53695
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A., Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Pradeep
Kumar Singh Vats

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to joint trials for
offenses arising from the same transaction,
where one trial is under a Special Act
(SC/ST, Act 1989) and the other is under the
Indian Penal Code.

Headnotes
Criminal
matter-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-S. 374(2) r/w S. 389Indian Penal Code,1860-Ss. 307, 323,
504,
506-SC/ST(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act,1989-S. 14-A-Challenge
to-Conviction-Maintainability
ofInformant
raised
a
preliminary
objection
to
the
appeal's
maintainability-The outcome of the trial
for charges under the Special Act is
appealable only under the provisions of
the Special Act(Section 14-A of the
Act,1989)-The outcome of the trial for
charges under the IPC is appealable
under the general procedure of the
Cr.PC (section 374(2))-The court found
the objection to the maintainability of
the instant appeal to be ruled out, and
the appeal was held to be maintainable.

Held
The court held that the two issues-joint trial
for
offenses
arising
from
the
same
transaction
and
the
procedure
for
challenging the outcome-should not be
intermingled-The
appeal
provisions
in
Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act,1989, start
with a non-obstante clause, providing an
exclusive remedy for filing an appeal for
those offenses-It is well settled that each
case has to be decided on its own merit and
the evidence recorded in one case cannot be
used in its cross-case-The trial which is
concluded for the charges under an special
act, will be apeallable in the given provisions
in special law and the other outcome of the
trial, for the charges under the IPC. is
appellable under CrPC-The instant appeal is
maintainable.(Para 8 to 20) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Nathi Lal Vs St. of U.P.(1990) SCC (Cri)
638,Nasib
Singh
Vs
St.
of
Punj.
&
Anr(2022)2 SCC 89,A.T. Mydeen & Anr Vs
Asst. Commr. Customs Dept.(2022) 14 SCC
392,Shailendra Yadav @ Salu Vs St. of U.P.
(CRLA No. 2174 of 2024 decided on 24-012025)-referred to.
8 All. Dwarika & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
425
List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Indian Penal
Code,1860,
SC/ST(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,1989

List of Keywords
SC/SC Act, maintainability, joint trial, Preliminary
objection, cross-case, Same transaction.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2389 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Dwarika & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.
Secy. Home Lko.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:
 Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Kalapanath, Vijay
Kumar
Advs. for Respondent:
 G.A., Akhilesh Pratap singh, Pradeep Kumar
Singh Vats

## Text

424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Contempt Court to pass any appropriate
order
in
the
Contempt
Application
considering the explanation/response of the
contemnor.

13. The Contempt Application in
question would be listed on 08th of
September, 2025 for orders.

14. Before parting with, it is made
clear that we have neither entered into the
merits of the case nor have interfered with
the impugned order dated 14.08.2025
(supra) so the learned Contempt Court may
pass any appropriate order in the Contempt
Application in question.

15. This appeal is hereby disposed of
in limine in terms of the aforesaid order.

16. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 424
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2389 of 2025

Dwarika & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Kalapanath, Vijay
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Pradeep
Kumar Singh Vats

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to joint trials for
offenses arising from the same transaction,
where one trial is under a Special Act
(SC/ST, Act 1989) and the other is under the
Indian Penal Code.

Headnotes
Criminal
matter-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-S. 374(2) r/w S. 389Indian Penal Code,1860-Ss. 307, 323,
504,
506-SC/ST(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act,1989-S. 14-A-Challenge
to-Conviction-Maintainability
ofInformant
raised
a
preliminary
objection
to
the
appeal's
maintainability-The outcome of the trial
for charges under the Special Act is
appealable only under the provisions of
the Special Act(Section 14-A of the
Act,1989)-The outcome of the trial for
charges under the IPC is appealable
under the general procedure of the
Cr.PC (section 374(2))-The court found
the objection to the maintainability of
the instant appeal to be ruled out, and
the appeal was held to be maintainable.

Held
The court held that the two issues-joint trial
for
offenses
arising
from
the
same
transaction
and
the
procedure
for
challenging the outcome-should not be
intermingled-The
appeal
provisions
in
Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act,1989, start
with a non-obstante clause, providing an
exclusive remedy for filing an appeal for
those offenses-It is well settled that each
case has to be decided on its own merit and
the evidence recorded in one case cannot be
used in its cross-case-The trial which is
concluded for the charges under an special
act, will be apeallable in the given provisions
in special law and the other outcome of the
trial, for the charges under the IPC. is
appellable under CrPC-The instant appeal is
maintainable.(Para 8 to 20) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Nathi Lal Vs St. of U.P.(1990) SCC (Cri)
638,Nasib
Singh
Vs
St.
of
Punj.
&
Anr(2022)2 SCC 89,A.T. Mydeen & Anr Vs
Asst. Commr. Customs Dept.(2022) 14 SCC
392,Shailendra Yadav @ Salu Vs St. of U.P.
(CRLA No. 2174 of 2024 decided on 24-012025)-referred to.
8 All. Dwarika & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
425
List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Indian Penal
Code,1860,
SC/ST(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,1989

List of Keywords
SC/SC Act, maintainability, joint trial, Preliminary
objection, cross-case, Same transaction.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2389 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Dwarika & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.
Secy. Home Lko.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:
 Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Kalapanath, Vijay
Kumar
Advs. for Respondent:
 G.A., Akhilesh Pratap singh, Pradeep Kumar
Singh Vats

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.K.Tripathi, learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
Dr.
V.K.Singh,learned Government Advocate
assisted by Sri Shivendra Singh Rathore for
the State, Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh and Sri
Pradeep
Kumar
Singh
Vats,learned
counsels for the informant.

2. Preliminary objection is raised by
the learned counsel for the informant that
the instant appeal under section 374 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Code, 1973")
readwith section 389 of Cr.P.C. against the
Judgment and Order dated 11-07-2025 and
the order of punishment/sentence dated 1507-2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge,S.C./S.T.
Act
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act, 1989") in Sessions Trial No. 200
of 2018, under sections 307, 323, 504, 506
of I.P.C., is not maintainable, for the reason
that the present matter has been tried
alongwith S.C./S.T. No. 108 of 2016,
arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2016,
under sections 302, 307, 325, 304, 506 of
I.P.C.and section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T.
Act and therefore, the appeal under section
14-A of the Act, 1989, is maintainable and
more so, he has filed the appeal under the
Act,
1989
for
enhancement
of
the
punishment/sentence
awarded
to
the
appellants, which is pending consideration.

3. The present appeal is directed
against the Judgment and Order dated 1107-2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 200
of 2018, under sections 307,302,504,506 of
the I.P.C.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the
Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2018 and
S.C./S.T. No. 108 of 2016 were heard
jointly, and the Judgments and Orders,
have been pronounced, separately.

5. In S.C./Sessions Trial No. 108,
matter is arising out of the offence under
the S.C./S.T. Act wherein, the chargesheet
was filed and the matter proceeded as per
the provisions of Act, 1989, whereas the
Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2018, proceeded
as per the "Code, 1973".

6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the following questions
enumerated :-

(a) Whether if joint trials of same
transaction of an offence concluded and if
in one of those comes under the Special
Act, whether the appeal of such joint trial
shall run as per the provisions prescribed
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Special Act or the procedure
envisaged in "Code, 1973" for filing an
appeal against such trial ?

7. Prior to discuss the issue, the
provisions of Section 223 of the Code,1973
and 14-A of the Act,1989 are referred as
under :-

"223. What persons may be
charged jointly:-. The following persons
may be charged and tried together,
namely:-

(a) persons accused of the same
offence committed in the course of the same
transaction;

(b) persons accused of an offence
and persons accused of abetment of or
attempt to commit, such offence;

(c) persons accused of more than
one offence of the same kind, within the
meaning of section 219 committed by them
jointly within the period of twelve months;

(d) persons accused of different
offences committed in the course of the
same transaction;

(e) persons accused of an offence
which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or
criminal misappropriation, and persons
accused of receiving or retaining, or
assisting in the disposal or concealment of,
property possession of which is alleged to
have been transferred by any such offence
committed by the first-named persons, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit any
such last-named offence;

(f) persons accused of offences
under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those
sections in respect of stolen property the
possession of which has been transferred
by one offence;

(g) persons accused of any
offence under Chapter XII of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to
counterfeit coin and persons accused of
any other offence under the said Chapter
relating to the same coin, or of abetment of
or attempting to commit any such offence;
and the provisions contained in the former
part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be,
apply to all such charges:

Provided that where a number of
persons are charged with separate offences
and such persons do not fall within any of
the categories specified in this section, the
[Magistrate or Court of Session] may, if
such persons by an application in writing,
so desire, and 2[if he or it is satisfied] that
such persons would not be prejudicially
affected thereby, and it is expedient so to
do, try all such persons together."

14A. Appeals(under Act 1989)-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Exclusive Special Court, to the
High Court both on facts and on law,
sentence
or
order,
not
being
an
interlocutory order, of a Special Court or
an Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
an appeal shall lie, from any judgment,

(2)
Norwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (3) of section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2
of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High
Court against an order of the Special Court
or the Exclusive Special Court granting or
refusing bail.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
8 All. Dwarika & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
427
being in force, every appeal under this
section shall be preferred within a period
of ninety days from the date of the
judgment, sentence or order appealed
from:

Provided that the High Court
may entertain an appeal after the expiry of
the said period of ninety days if it is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal within
the period of ninety days:

appeal shall be entertained after
the expiry of the Provided further that no
period of one hundred and eighty days.

(4) Every appeal preferred under
sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within a period of three months
from the date of admission of the appeal.]"

8. Time and again, the issue regarding
the joint trial is dealt with by the various
courts of law including the Apex Court and
in one of the leading Judgment rendered in
the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P.,
reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 638, it has
been dealt with in paragraph no. 2 as
follows :-

"2. We think that the fair
procedure to adopt in a matter like the
present where there are cross cases, is to
direct that the same learned Judge must
try both the cross cases one after the
other. After the recording of evidence in
one case is completed, he must hear the
arguments but he must reserve the
judgment Thereafter he must proceed to
hear the cross case and after recording
all the evidence he must hear the
arguments but reserve the judgment in
that case. The same learned Judge must
thereafter dispose of the matters by two
separate judgments. In deciding each of
the cases, he can rely only on the
evidence recorded in that particular case.
The evidence recorded in the cross case
cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge
be influenced by whatever is argued in
the cross case. Each case must be
decided on the basis of the evidence
which has been placed on record in that
particular case without being influenced
in any manner by the evidence or
arguments urged in the cross case. But
both the judgments must be pronounced
by the same learned Judge one after the
other."

9. The law, which is discussed and
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
has become a guideline for joint trial. It is
held that the same learned Judge must
dispose of the matter by two separate
Judgments and the evidence recorded in
one particular case, will not be read into
another and he would not be influenced
by even whatever is argued in the cross
case. This indicates that the very basis of
constituting the ingredients of an offence
stated to have been committed, the
separate evidence is required. In the
instant matter, there were two separate
trials, but, in one of the trial, the matter
pertains
to
the
charges
under
the
S.C./S.T. Act and certainly, the separate
evidence must have been taken.

10. In the case of Nasib Singh Vs
State of Punjab and Another, reported in
(2022) 2 SCC 89, while adopting the ratio
of Judgment of Nathi Lal (Supra), it has
been emphasized that statutory provisions
neither renders the joint trial imperative nor
does it bar or prohibit separate trial and
therefore, the trial court is to determine at
the beginning of trial that whether the cross
cases are arising out of the same transaction
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of crime or not and it is not open at the
subsequent stage, while looking into the
result of the trial, to take a decision for
joint trial of the matter.

11. It is also elaborated that at the
stage of appeal against such trial, if such
questions are raised, then, the person, who
is raising such objection is under obligation
to establish the prejudice as having been
caused to him as a result of separate trial.

12. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of A.T. Mydeen and Another Vs.
Assistant
Commissioner,
Customs
Department, reported in (2022) 14 SCC
392, has categorically held that each case
has to be decided on it's own merit and sole
rule is that both the trials must be
conducted simultaneously. Paragraph no.
26 of the said Judgment is extracted as
under :-

"26. So far as the law for trial of
the cross-cases is concerned, it is fairly
well settled that each case has to be
decided on its own merit and the evidence
recorded in one case cannot be used in its
cross-case.
Whatever
evidence
is
available on the record of the case only
that has to be considered. The only
caution is that both the trials should be
conducted simultaneously or in case of
the
appeal,
they
should
be
heard
simultaneously. However, we are not
concerned with cross-cases but are
concerned with an eventuality of two
separate trials for the commission of the
same offence (two complaints for the
same offence) for two sets of accused, on
account of one of them absconding."

13. This court has also noticed the
procedure prescribed under section 4 (2) &
5 of the Cr.P.C., which read as under :-

"4. Trial of offences under the
Indian Penal Code and other laws.

(1) ........

(2) All offences under any other
law shall be investigated, inquired into,
tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
the same provisions, but subject to any
enactment for the time being in force
regulating
the
manner
or
place
of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences.

5. Saving. Nothing contained in
this Code shall, in the absence of a specific
provision to the contrary, affect any special
or local law for the time being in force, or
any
special
jurisdiction
or
power
conferred, or any special form of procedure
prescribed, by any other law for the time
being in force.

14. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear
that every offence under any other law,
shall be investigated, enquired into, tried
and otherwise dealt with, according to the
same provisions, but, subject to any
enactment for time being enforced.

15. The Full Bench of this court in
case of Shailendra Yadav @ Salu Vs
State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2174
of 2024 decided on 24-01-2025) though
dealing with different reference has held in
paragraph nos. 44 and 52 of the case, which
is an obiter dicta. Eventually, dealing with
the aforesaid reference, the court has
entered into this question as well that the
intent of the legislature in incorporating the
clauses (1) (2) of Section 14-A of the
"Act,1989", read with the amendment,
2016, suggests that the appeals against all
orders, sentence and Judgments are to be
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
429
preferred to the High Court on facts as well
as on law and must be respected.

16. It is a trite law that every clause
of a statute should be construed with
reference to the constraint and other
explanation of the act as for as possible to
make a statute meaningful and it is duty
of the court to find out the true intention
of legislature to ascertain the purpose of
statute while giving it a full meaning to
the same.

17. Having at a glance of the
provisions of Section 14-A of the Act,1989,
it is apparent that the same starts with nonobstante clause, which infact provides the
exclusive remedy of filing an appeal
notwithstanding
any
law
time
being
enforced.

18. There are two issues that could
not be intermingled; first that the offence
arising out of same transaction as a cross
case, must be tried together, but, this does
not indicate or make it imperative that if
in one set of allegations, an special act
covers the field, the further provisions
provided challenging such outcome of the
trials, would come with one of the
provision provided in the special act.
Infact,
the
procedure
for
trial
is
particularly and exhaustively provided
under Cr.P.C. including the appeals
against such Judgment and Order passed
in such trials and infact,this answers the
question that if there are two separate
trials, one with respect to charges in an
special act and another simply in I.P.C.,
both can be tried together while taking
the separate evidences in both the trials
and without being prejudice to each of
the evidences placed thereof, but, so far
as further challenge of the outcome of
those trials are concerned that can be
heard jointly, in an appeal, but, in the
separate provision prescribed as per the
law time being enforced as an special law
as well as the procedure prescribed in the
Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the foregoing reasons,
this court finds that the trial which is
concluded for the charges under an
special act, will be appellable in the given
provisions in special law, and the other
outcome of the trial, for the charges
under the I.P.C., is appellable under
Cr.P.C.

20. Ergo, the objection raised is
hereby ruled out. Resultantly, the instant
appeal is maintainable.

21. List/put up this matter on 21-082025 for hearing, on admission of appeal
and on bail application.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018
&
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 680 of
2022

Dayanand Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Janardan, Pulak Ganguly, Ravikant Tiwari,
Sharad Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Rajeev Kumar Singh