# Sanjay Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 8411 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54025
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 878
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 8411 of 2025

Sanjay Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a criminal appeal, duly instituted within the prescribed period of limitation, can be
dismissed in default solely on account of non-appearance of counsel, and whether such dismissal, being
contrary to the statutory mandate governing appellate procedure, renders subsequent proceedings including
rejection of an application for condonation of delay in filing a fresh appeal legally unsustainable.

Headnotes
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5 - Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - s. 425 - Dismissal of appeal - Summary - Revisional - Powers - The instant
criminal revision was instituted by revisionist, challenging the judgment dated 20.05.2022
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No.
1400 of 2020, whereby he was convicted and sentenced u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
as well as the subsequent appellate order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Sessions Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 dismissing his appeal in default, and the order dated 17.09.2025
passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, rejecting his application u/s 5 of Limitation
Act seeking condonation of delay in filing a fresh appeal - The revisionist had preferred the
original criminal appeal within the prescribed period of limitation while remaining in custody,
however, the same was dismissed for non-appearance of counsel - Thereafter, he filed another
appeal along with an application for condonation of delay to set aside the dismissal order, which
too was rejected, leading to filing of instant criminal revision before the High Court. (E-11)

Held: The order dated 26.10.2023 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 in default is absolutely void ab
initio - Hence, the order dated 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 is set aside -
Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur,
in Criminal Misc. Case No. 587 of 2024 u/s 5 of Limitation Act has no legal significance and is also set aside -
There is no requirement or legal necessity for filing a second criminal appeal - The Criminal Appeal No. 96 of
2022, which was filed by the revisionist/accused within the prescribed period of limitation, is valid and in
consonance with the provisions of law - The same can be decided only on merits and not dismissed in default
- The learned appellate court is directed to decide the criminal appeal as expeditiously as possible -
Accordingly, criminal revision allowed. [Paras 8 to 11]

Case Law Cited
K. Muruganandam & ORS. v. State Rep. by the Superintendent of Police and Anr., (2021) 20 SCC 642 -
referred to

List of Acts
1 All. Sanjay Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
879
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; Limitation Act, 1963; Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; Complaint Case; s. 138 of N.I. Act; Criminal Appeal; Dismissed in default;
Period of limitation; Continuously in jail; Application u/s 5 of Limitation Act; Condonation of
delay; s. 425 of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to s. 384 Cr.P.C.); Summary dismissal of appeal;
Reasonable opportunity of being heard; Recording of reasons; Void ab initio; Set aside; No legal
significance; Expeditiously as possible; Revision allowed.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 8411 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 587 of 2024, Order dated 26.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 and Judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 1400 of 2020.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Kunwar Abhishek Singh, Suresh Pratap Singh

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist/Sanjay Yadav and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order
dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 587 of 2024, as well as the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav versus Mithilesh Narayan Pandey),
and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist,
Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 1400 of 2020, Mithilesh Narain Pandey versus Sanjay Yadav,
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist/accused has submitted that the revisionist was convicted
and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur, in Complaint Case No. 1400 of 2020, Mithilesh Narain Pandey
versus Sanjay Yadav, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Sahjanwa, District
Gorakhpur.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
20.05.2022, the revisionist/accused preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Court,
Gorakhpur, vide Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav versus Mithilesh Narayan
Pandey) within the period of limitation. The revisionist/accused was continuously in jail. The said
criminal appeal was dismissed in default on 26.10.2023.
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Thereafter, the revisionist/accused, Sanjay Yadav, filed another criminal appeal along with
an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 31.08.2024 for setting aside the order dated
26.10.2023, as well as for condonation of delay in filing another appeal after a period of eight
months. The said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the learned
Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 587 of 2024. Hence, the present criminal revision.

6. The revisionist/accused Sanjay Yadav was convicted and sentenced on 20.05.2022.
Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022, which was dismissed in default on
26.10.2023. The dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 in default on account of absence of
learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to law and is not in consonance with Section 425 of the
B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 384 Cr.P.C.).

Section 425 of B.N.S.S. is quoted herein below:

"425. Summary dismissal of appeal. (1) If upon examining the petition of appeal and
copy of the judgment received under section 423 or section 424, the Appellate Court considers that
there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily: Provided that-
(a) no appeal presented under section 423 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his advocate
has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same; (b) no appeal presented
under section 424 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in support of the same, unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is
frivolous or that the production of the accused in custody before the Court would involve such
inconvenience as would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the case; (c) no appeal
presented under section 424 shall be dismissed summarily until the period allowed for preferring
such appeal has expired. (2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for
the record of the case.(3) Where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is a
Court of Session or of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so. (4)
Where an appeal presented under section 424 has been dismissed summarily under this section and
the Appellate Court finds that another petition of appeal duly presented under section 423 on
behalf of the same appellant has not been considered by it, that Court may, notwithstanding
anything contained in section 434, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do,
hear and dispose of such appeal in accordance with law."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Muruganandam & ORS. v. State Rep. by
the Superintendent of Police and Anr. , (2021) 20 SCC 642, has held that the court is obliged to
proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae, but can not dismiss the
appeal merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused. The
relevant paragraph of the the above judgement is being Quoted below:

''8. It is well settled that if the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by
him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an
amicus curiae, but cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or default of
the advocate for the accused (see Kabira vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Mohd. Sukur Ali vs. State
of Assam).''
1 All. Vineeta Vs. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh
881

8. The order dated 26.10.2023 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 in default is
absolutely void ab initio. Hence, the said order dated 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 96
of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav versus Mithilesh Narayan Pandey) is hereby set aside. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur, in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 587 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no legal
significance and is also set aside.

9. There is no requirement or legal necessity for filing a second criminal appeal. The Criminal
Appeal No. 96 of 2022, which was filed by the revisionist/accused within the prescribed period of
limitation, is valid and in consonance with the provisions of law. The same can be decided only on
merits and not dismissed in default. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2022 (Sanjay Yadav
versus Mithilesh Narayan Pandey) is hereby restored to its original number.

10. The learned appellate court is directed to decide the criminal appeal as expeditiously as
possible.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 881
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025

Vineeta ...Revisionist
Versus
Dr. Ved Prakash Singh ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for interim maintenance u/s
125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the husband, though otherwise capable, had been rendered physically
incapacitated and financially unable to maintain the wife due to a grievous injury allegedly caused by the acts
of wife's family members, and consequently, whether such incapacity disentitles the wife from claiming
maintenance despite the statutory obligation of her husband.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125 - Interim maintenance - Plea of - Revisional
jurisdiction - Scope of - Incapacity - Proof of - The revisionist-wife instituted proceedings u/s
125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against her husband, asserting that the opposite partyhusband, despite having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain her - On the other
hand, the husband contended that he was earlier running a homeopathic clinic and he had
suffered a grievous firearm injury, allegedly at the instance of the real brother and father of the
revisionist, resulting in a pellet being lodged in his spinal cord and rendering him physically
incapacitated and incapable of earning his livelihood - The Trial Court, upon consideration of the