# Laxman v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxman-v-state-of-u-p-53953
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court can recall its earlier
judgment dated 17.03.2025 confirming the
conviction of the appellant, on the ground that
the judgment was passed "in the absence of the
appellant, treating him as an absconder" and
whether such recall is maintainable under S. 528
BNSS (corresponding S. 482 Cr.P.C.), in view of
the bar under S. 362 Cr.P.C. (S. 403 of BNSS).

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Recall
of Judgment - Scope of S. 528 BNSS / S.
482 Cr.P.C. - Bar under S. 362 Cr.P.C. / S.
403 BNSS -Absconding Accused - Appeal
Heard on Merits in Absence - Consistent
with law in Surya Baksh Singh and Bani
Singh - Court may decide appeal on merits
when
appellant
deliberately
avoids
appearance
-
Case
Distinguished
-
Dhananjay Rai inapplicable since appeal
there was dismissed without going into
merits; here the appeal was decided on
merits - High Court cannot entertain a
recall or review application under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. to re-examine or modify its
own judgment on merits after it has been
signed - Inherent power can be used only
to prevent an abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice, but
it does not extend to reviewing a final
judgment except for rectifying minor
errors.
Held: The appeal had already been decided on
merits, after full "re-appreciating and reevaluating the evidence on record" - ratio of
Dhananjay Rai is inapplicable - The appellant
had absconded for 30 years, failed to appear
despite several opportunities were given to the
applicant/appellant, and therefore the Court
rightly proceeded to decide the appeal on merits
- Recall under S. 528 BNSS / S. 482 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable, as S. 362 Cr.P.C. (S. 403
BNSS) "explicitly prohibits" review/alteration of
a signed judgment, except to correct a clerical
or
arithmetical
error
-
Supreme
Court
precedents affirm that criminal courts become
functus officio after signing the judgment, and
inherent powers cannot circumvent S. 362
Cr.P.C. - Consequently, "this recall application
along with delay condonation application is
dismissed. (Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs. State of Bihar,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597; Surya Baksh Singh
9 All. Laxman Vs. State of U.P.
665
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC
222; K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka,
(2013) 3 SCC 721; Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of
Assam, (1996) 4 SCC 729; Bani Singh vs.
State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720; Vikram
Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and Another,
2025 SCC Online SC 1783

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Absconding; recall; delay condonation; reappreciating; re-evaluating; non prosecution;
procedural
review;
substantive
review;
substantive review; functus officio; clerical or
arithmetical error; opportunity of being heard.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983, arising from
confirmation of conviction and sentence upheld
by judgment dated 17.03.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
G.P. Dixit
Prakash Chandra Srivastava
Vishnu Prakash
Advs. for the Respondent-State:
A.G.A.

## Text

664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the defence witnesses. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this
Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the
accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit
of doubt.

29. The criminal appeal succeeds and
is allowed.

30. Accused-appellant Prakash son of
Achal Bahadur, is on bail, therefore, his
bail bonds are discharged. He need not
surrender. He shall file personal bond and
surety bonds in compliance of Section
437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of Trial
Court within a period of four weeks.

31. The office is directed to transmit
the lower court record along with a copy of
the judgment to the Trial Court for ensuring
compliance.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 664
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983

Laxman ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
G.P. Dixit, Prakash Chandra Srivastava,
Vishnu Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court can recall its earlier
judgment dated 17.03.2025 confirming the
conviction of the appellant, on the ground that
the judgment was passed "in the absence of the
appellant, treating him as an absconder" and
whether such recall is maintainable under S. 528
BNSS (corresponding S. 482 Cr.P.C.), in view of
the bar under S. 362 Cr.P.C. (S. 403 of BNSS).

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Recall
of Judgment - Scope of S. 528 BNSS / S.
482 Cr.P.C. - Bar under S. 362 Cr.P.C. / S.
403 BNSS -Absconding Accused - Appeal
Heard on Merits in Absence - Consistent
with law in Surya Baksh Singh and Bani
Singh - Court may decide appeal on merits
when
appellant
deliberately
avoids
appearance
-
Case
Distinguished
-
Dhananjay Rai inapplicable since appeal
there was dismissed without going into
merits; here the appeal was decided on
merits - High Court cannot entertain a
recall or review application under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. to re-examine or modify its
own judgment on merits after it has been
signed - Inherent power can be used only
to prevent an abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice, but
it does not extend to reviewing a final
judgment except for rectifying minor
errors.
Held: The appeal had already been decided on
merits, after full "re-appreciating and reevaluating the evidence on record" - ratio of
Dhananjay Rai is inapplicable - The appellant
had absconded for 30 years, failed to appear
despite several opportunities were given to the
applicant/appellant, and therefore the Court
rightly proceeded to decide the appeal on merits
- Recall under S. 528 BNSS / S. 482 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable, as S. 362 Cr.P.C. (S. 403
BNSS) "explicitly prohibits" review/alteration of
a signed judgment, except to correct a clerical
or
arithmetical
error
-
Supreme
Court
precedents affirm that criminal courts become
functus officio after signing the judgment, and
inherent powers cannot circumvent S. 362
Cr.P.C. - Consequently, "this recall application
along with delay condonation application is
dismissed. (Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs. State of Bihar,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597; Surya Baksh Singh
9 All. Laxman Vs. State of U.P.
665
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC
222; K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka,
(2013) 3 SCC 721; Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of
Assam, (1996) 4 SCC 729; Bani Singh vs.
State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720; Vikram
Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and Another,
2025 SCC Online SC 1783

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Absconding; recall; delay condonation; reappreciating; re-evaluating; non prosecution;
procedural
review;
substantive
review;
substantive review; functus officio; clerical or
arithmetical error; opportunity of being heard.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983, arising from
confirmation of conviction and sentence upheld
by judgment dated 17.03.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
G.P. Dixit
Prakash Chandra Srivastava
Vishnu Prakash
Advs. for the Respondent-State:
A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

Order on Criminal Misc. Recall
Application
along
with
Delay
Condonation Application

1.
Heard
Mr.
Prakash
Chandra
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant/appellant and Mr. Jai Narain,
learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. 2.
The present application along with delay
condonation application has been filed by
the
applicant/appellant
under
Section
Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking recall of
the judgment and order dated 17.3.2025,
passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1876 of 1983 whereby this Court has
confirmed the conviction and sentence of
the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the impugned
judgment was passed in the absence of the
appellant, treating him as an absconder
despite the appeal being admitted and the
applicant having been granted bail by this
court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant's counsel,
Mr. G.P. Dixit, passed away a long time
ago. Consequently, the appellant could not
be informed about the hearing of the appeal
and therefore was not properly represented.
Although
this
court
issued
coercive
measures against the appellant, he could
not be informed because he was no longer
living in his village of Beerpur Salempur. It
is submitted that the appellant was residing
at House No. 636, Har Gobind Nagar
Muktasar Sahib, in Punjab with his
brother/deponent, who was taking care of
him. As a result, the appellant could not
respond to the notice issued by this court.

5. It is further submitted that appellant
came to know about the impugned
judgment on 30.05.2025. Thereafter, he
appeared before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Etahwah, on 02.06.2025, and
has been in jail since that date.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the impugned order has
been passed ex parte without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant and,
therefore, the same may be recalled. He has
relied upon the decision in the case of
Dhanajay Rai @ Guddu rai vs. State of
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bihar (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597) to submit
that an admitted appeal against conviction
cannot be dismissed on the ground that the
accused in absconding. Learned counsel for
the appellant has relied upon paragraph
No.8 of this judgment which is quoted
below :

"8. The anguish expressed by
the division bench about the brazen
action of the appellant of absconding
and defeating the administration of
justice
can
be
well
understood.
However, that is no good ground to
dismiss
the
appeal
against
the
conviction, which was already admitted
for final hearing, for non prosecution
without adverting to merits. Therefore
the impugned judgment will have to be
set aside and the appeal will have to be
remanded to the High Court for
consideration of the merit".

7. As against this, learned A.G.A for
the respondent State has submitted that the
impugned order has been passed on merits,
after re-appreciation of the evidence rather
than due to non prosecution. Therefore, the
recall application is not maintainable in
view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.

8.
Learned
A.G.A.
has
further
submitted
that
the
applicant
was
absconding for a long time; therefore, this
Court issued a notice for his appearance
either personally or through an advocate.
Learned A.G.A. has relied upon paragraphs
1 to 6 of the judgment dated 17.3.2025,
which confirmed the trial Court's judgment.
Paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said judgment are
being reproduced:

"1. List revised. No one appears
on behalf of the appellant to press the
present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the
appellant died long back and as such,
appellant was issued notice to engage
another
counsel
vide
order
dated
24.10.2018. As per the report submitted by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah dated
11.01.2022, the appellant Luxman is
missing since last 30 years. Noticing the
aforesaid fact on 27.04.2024, following
order was passed:

"The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Etawah, by a letter dated 11.1.2022, has
informed that the appellant Luxman is
missing/absconding for the last 30 years.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Etawah, with the help of administration
may adopt all possible measures to search
out the appellant. The measures which he
would take would include the measure of
tapping the sureties.

List this case on 27.5.2024."

 3. According to the office report
dated 24.05.2024, based on the report of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah dated
23.05.2024, whereabouts of the appellant
and his family members are not known.
Names and addresses of sureties could not
be ascertained as the bail bonds furnished
by appellant-accused were not found in the
trial court?s record. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Etawah vide letter dated
25.07.2024 has again reported that the
appellant and the sureties could not be
located.

4. In Surya Baksh Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC
222, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
it is always not necessary to adjourn the
matter in case both appellants or his
counsels/lawyers are absent and the Court
can decide the appeal on merits after
perusal of the record and the judgement of
the trial Court. It has further been observed
that if the case is decided on merits in the
absence of the appellant, the higher court
9 All. Laxman Vs. State of U.P.
667
can remedy the situation. It has also been
observed that appointment of Amicus
Curiae is also on the discretion of the
court. In paragraph 26 of the said
judgement, it was held that it is always not
essential for the High Court to an appoint
Amicus Curiae, paragraphs 24 and 26 of
the said judgement whereof are quoted as
under:

"24. It seems to us that it is
necessary for the Appellate Court which is
confronted with the absence of the convict
as well as his Counsel, to immediately
proceed against the persons who stood
surety at the time when the convict was
granted bail, as this may lead to his
discovery and production in Court. If even
this exercise fails to locate and bring forth
the convict, the Appellate Court is
empowered to dismiss the appeal. We fully
and respectfully concur with the recent
elucidation of the law, profound yet
perspicuous, in K.S. Panduranga v. State of
Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721. After a
comprehensive
analysis
of
previous
decisions our learned Brother had distilled
the legal position into six propositions:

"19.1. that the High Court cannot
dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution
simpliciter without examining the merits;

19.2. that the Court is not bound
to adjourn the matter if both the Appellant
or his Counsel/lawyer are absent;

19.3. that the court may, as a
matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn
the matter but it is not bound to do so;

 19.4. that it can dispose of the
appeal after perusing the record and
judgment of the trial court.

 19.5. that if the accused is in jail
and cannot, on his own, come to court, it
would be advisable to adjourn the case and
fix
another
date
to
facilitate
the
appearance of the Appellant-accused if his
lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is
absent and the court deems it appropriate
to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to
assist it, nothing in law would preclude the
court from doing so; and

19.6. that if the case is decided on
merits in the absence of the Appellant, the
higher court can remedy the situation.

25....

26. Reverting back to the facts of
the present case a perusal of the impugned
order makes it abundantly evident that the
High Court has considered the case in all
its complexities. The argument that the
High Court was duty-bound to appoint an
amicus curiae is not legally sound.
Panduranga correctly considers Mohd.
Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (1996) 4 SCC
729 as per incuriam, inasmuch as the latter
mandates the appointment of an amicus
curiae and is thus irreconcilable with Bani
Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720.
In the case in hand the High Court has
manifestly discussed the evidence that have
been led, and finding it of probative value,
has come to the conclusion that the
conviction is above Appellate reproach
correction and interference. In view of the
analysis of the law the contention raised
before us that it was essential for the High
Court to have appointed an amicus curiae
is wholly untenable. The High Court has
duly undertaken the curial responsibility
that fastens upon the Appellate Court, and
cannot be faulted on the approach adopted
by it. In this respect, we find no error.?

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The aforesaid view has been
followed by the Hon'ble Full Bench in
Criminal Reference No.1 of 2024, In Re-
Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing Of
Criminal Appeals vs. State of U.P.,
decided on 22.01.2025, paragraph Nos.
151 and 152 whereof are quoted as under:
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"151. The crux of the aforesaid
observations
of
the
three
celebrated
judgments
rendered
by
the
Hon?ble
Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S.
Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13,
thus, covers the entire length and breadth
of Question No. 5 formulated by the
Division
Bench
at
Lucknow
for
consideration by this Bench and no fresh
exercise, in our considered opinion, is
required to be undertaken by this Bench,
including on one point which has been
highlighted by the Division Bench at
Lucknow i.e. whether the amicus curiae
may be appointed even when the presence
of the convict, appellant or accusedrespondent may be secured and without his
consent.

152.
The
aforesaid
legal
precedents would evidently canvass that the
emphasis of the Apex Court has been on
providing opportunity of being heard to the
appellant who is willing to cooperate with
the appellate court or his counsel and in
this regard a process to cause his presence
for the purpose of giving opportunity of
being heard is required to be issued to him
and when the court is satisfied that such
appellant is deliberately avoiding his
presence before the court, in such a
situation, the court may dispose of the
appeal in the manner approved by the
Hon?ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and
K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13
(i.e. after perusing the record/evidence visa-vis judgment of the trial court with the
assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if
appointed) and we do not have any reason
to deviate from the settled proposition laid
down by the Apex Court in the above
mentioned
cases,
moreover,
the
appointment of amicus is only for the
purpose to provide fair trail to the
appellant and also for rendering the
assistance to the Court."

6. Under such circumstances, we
proceed to consider the present appeal on
merits with the help of Shri Rahul Asthana,
learned AGA for the State."

9. This Court has gone through the
entire record and after perusal of the entire
record and other documents, it is observed
that that the appellant was given ample
opportunity to appear before this court, but
he failed to do so. It is undisputed that
despite being released on bail, the appellant
chose to abscond and did not appear to
represent himself. Therefore, this court
proceeded to consider and adjudicate the
appeal on merits.

10. The appeal preferred by the
applicant/appellant was considered and
decided on its merits, after re-appreciating
and re-evaluating the evidence on record
following the decisions in Surya Baksh
Singh (Supra) and in Criminal Reference
No.1 of 2024, In Re- Procedure To Be
Followed
In
Hearing
Of
Criminal
Appeals vs. State of U.P.. The judgment
confirming the conviction appellant, which
spans in 19 pages, details the facts and
evidence
on
record,
discusses
the
depositions of prosecution witnesses, and
applies the facts to relevant case laws.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the
impugned judgment is passed without
adverting to the merits of the case.

11. The judgment relied by the
appellant in Dhananjay Rai (Supra)
cannot aid the appellant, as the facts in the
said matter is different from the present
one. In that case, the appeal was dismissed
for non prosecution without adverting to
9 All. Laxman Vs. State of U.P.
669
merits. However, in the present case, the
appeal has been decided on merits after reappreciating and re-evaluating of evidence
on record.

12. Moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has time and again held that held that
a High Court cannot entertain a recall or
review application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) to reexamine or modify its own judgment on
merits after it has been signed. The inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(Section 528 of BNSS) can be used only to
prevent an abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice, but it
does not extend to reviewing a final
judgment except for rectifying minor
errors.

13. In a recent decision in Vikram
Bakshi and Others vs. R.P. Khosla and
Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1783 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

27. The law relating to power of a
criminal court to review or alter its own
judgment or order is governed by the
provisions of Section 362 of CrPC
(equivalent to Section 403 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The
Provision explicitly provides that except for
clerical and arithmetical error, no court
shall alter or review its judgment. It is
appropriate to refer to the bare provision
of Section 362 of CrPC which reads as
follows:

362. Court not to alter judgment.-
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or
by any other law for the time being in
force, no Court, when it has signed its
judgment or fin Criminal Appeal @ SLP
(Crl.) No.3425/2022 Page 16 of 27 order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review
the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error."

27A. The comparison of the
power of review of a civil court vis-a-vis
power of criminal court to review or recall
its own judgment or order arising out of
criminal proceedings has been put to rest
by numerous decisions of this Court. It
would be appropriate at this juncture to
discuss the relevant decisions of this court
pertaining to review or recall power of
criminal courts to ascertain the correct
position of law before proceeding to refer
and deal with the factual matrix of the
present case.

28. The scope of Section 362 of
CrPC has been discussed and elaborated
by a three-judge bench decision of this
Court in State of Kerala vs. M.M.
Manikantan Nair,4 wherein it held that
CrPC does not authorize High Court to
review its judgment or order passed either
in exercise of its appellate, revisional or
original jurisdiction. Section 362 explicitly
prohibits the court after it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of case
from altering or reviewing the said
judgment or order except to correct a
clerical
or
arithmetical
error.
This
prohibition is complete and no criminal
court can review its own judgment or order
after it is signed.

29. Similarly, in Hari Singh
Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and
Others5, this Court observed that section
362 of CrPC is based on the acknowledged
principle of law that once a matter is
finally disposed of by a court, the said
court, in absence of specific statutory
provisions, becomes functus officio and is
disentitled to entertain fresh prayer for
same relief.

30. In Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) it
has been reiterated that Section 362 of
CrPC imposes an embargo on a criminal
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court to alter and review its own judgment.
Elaborating
on
the
two
relaxations
envisioned by the legislature, this Court
explained that an alteration or review is
only feasible if it is so provided by the said
legislation itself or by any other law in
force. It was also clarified that such an
attempt to alter or review is also not
feasible or permissible through a reference
to Section 482 of CrPC for being expressly
barred under Section 362 of CrPC.

34. Criminal Appeal @ SLP
(Crl.) No.3425/2022 Page 19 of 27 34. A
careful consideration of the statutory
provisions and the aforesaid decisions of
this Court clarify the now-well-settled
position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of
CrPC which when summarize would be
that the criminal courts, as envisaged
under the CrPC, are barred from altering
or review their own judgments except for
the
exceptions
which
are
explicitly
provided by the statute, namely, correction
of a clerical or an arithmetical error that
might have been committed or the said
power is provided under any other law for
the time being in force. As the courts
become functus officio the very moment a
judgment or an order is signed, the bar of
Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable,
this, despite the powers provided under
Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot
allow the courts to step beyond or
circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands
clarified that it is only in situations wherein
an application for recall of an order or
judgment seeking a "procedural review"
that the bar would not apply and not a
substantive review" where the bar as
contained in Section "362 CrPC is
attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court
have also elaborated that the bar under
said provision is to be applied stricto
sensu."

14. The appellant has not annexed any
document which shows that he was
residing outside of his residence and he
never approached to his residence. No
information was given to him by his family
members and he was evading the Court
proceedings for last thirty years. The order
sheet of Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983
reveals that several opportunities were
given to the applicant/appellant. Even nonbailable warrant was issued against him but
he did not come before the Court and gave
wrong impression that whereabouts were
not known to anybody. Thus in the present
facts and circumstances of the case, this
recall application filed under Section 528
of BNSS along with delay condonation
application is not maintainable as it is
barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section
403 of BNSS).

15. In view of the above, this recall
application along with delay condonation
application is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 670
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 1985

Pargan Singh & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Anil Raghav, Brijesh Sahai, S.P.S. Raghav,
Shanshak Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A. , V. Singh