SANTOSH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                    Reserved on 8.12.2025
                                                    Delivered on 19.3.2026
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 756 of 1987

Santosh Kumar Singh
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                   :   Jagdish Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   A.G.A.

Court No. - 51
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. This criminal appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant – Santosh

Kumar Singh with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the order
dated 9.2.1987 passed by Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra in

Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of of 1987 (State vs. S.K. Singh). By the said

order, a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed upon the appellant.


2. Briefly stated, the appellant, after an arrest warrant was issued against

him, appeared before the court on the date of order in connection with the

Criminal Sessions Trial No.328 of 1985 (State vs. Asha) under Section

302 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.138/1983, in which the appellant

was Investigating Officer. The appellant was taken into custody, but he

escaped from the custody in hurriedly and insulting way. Again after

fifteen minutes, the appellant appeared with some advocates and he was

taken into custody. The court took cognizance under Section 345 Cr.P.C.

and granted the appellant an opportunity to show cause as to why he

should no be punished under Section 228 IPC for his misbehaviour, but

he offered no explanation. The court also noted the conduct of the
                                                        CRLA No. 756 of 1987
                               2


appellant and observed that indulgence to such indisciplined and

uncultured police force, who had flouted the orders of court by escaping

from the custody of the court. Such conduct is indication to the habitual

offenders. Consequently, the concerned court imposed a fine of Rs.200/-

upon the appellant.


3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is

bad in eyes of law as it has been passed without considering the facts of

the case. The appellant, who was Investigating Officer of aforesaid

sessions trial, could not appear before the court on the dates fixed due to

other liability related to his Department, for which arrest warrant was

issued against him and his absence was not deliberate. Hence, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.


4. Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA submitted that the appellant even failed

to tender any satisfactory explanation before the concerned court for his

non appearance. Even the conduct of the appellant, after his appearance,

was not proper. Even he escaped from the custody of the concerned court.

Surrounding circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had wilfully

defaulted the orders of the concerned court.


5. After considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel and

after perusing the records, it is relevant to mention that this criminal
appeal is not maintainable in light of the provisions laid down under

Section 376(b) Cr.P.C. which is as follows:-

      “376. No Appeal in petty cases - Notwithstanding anything
      contained in Section 374, there shall be no appeal by a convicted
      person in any of the following cases, namely :-

      (a) ……….
                                                                                             CRLA No. 756 of 1987
                                                                   3


                                          (b) where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only
                                          a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or
                                          of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such
                                          imprisonment and fine;

                                          ……….......”

                                    6. From the impugned order, it is apparent that only a fine of Rs.200/- has

                                    been imposed in this case.


                                    7. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the case, this

                                    criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.



                                                                                            (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad