Allahabad High Court
BIRENDER PAL SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The appellate order dated 29.11.2025 is set aside as it was infructuous, and the conviction is vacated.
Summary
The revisionists challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.11.2025, which had set aside their acquittal under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted them on probation. They contended that an earlier appeal (Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025, Fateh Singh v. State) had already affirmed the trial court’s acquittal, rendering the later appellate proceeding infructuous. The High Court examined whether the appellate court could pass a judgment on a matter already decided by another appellate authority. It held that the trial court judgment had merged with the earlier appellate order, so the later appellate order was unsustainable. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the impugned judgment and conviction were set aside, and the trial court record was ordered to be returned.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025 could entertain the appeal when an earlier appellate judgment in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025 had already decided the same issues.
- Whether the order dated 29.11.2025 constitutes a review of the earlier appellate judgment and is therefore impermissible.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
- Probation of Offenders Act — s. 4
Subjects
- criminal revision
- double appeal
- merger of judgments
- Section 498-A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Probation of Offenders Act
- appellate jurisdiction
- review of appellate order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8905 of 2025
Birender Pal Singh And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
2. On 13.08.2026, office was directed to submit an explanation with regard
to proper indexing of record of the Trial Court. Office has submitted
explanation, in this regard which appears satisfactory, is taken on record.
3. An explanation of the presiding officer of the appellate court called in
which he has denied the allegation of any foulplay and has stated that he has
passed the impugned order in ignorance of earlier judgment passed by
another appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025, after arguments
were advanced on behalf of both the parties.
4. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated
29.11.2025 of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Court No.3, Bulandshahar
in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025 (State Vs. Virendra Pal Singh and
Another).
5. By the impugned judgment and order the learned appellate court has
partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated
31.01.2025 of the learned Trial Court, whereby the acquittal of the accused
under Sections- 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act in
Case No.64 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2013, was affirmed.
But the acquittal under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act was set aside and the accused were convicted under Section-
498A I.P.C and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibtion Act and were given benefit
of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation for a
CRLR No. 8905 of 2025
2
period of one year for maintaining good conduct and peace.
6. The contention on behalf of the revisionists is that against the same
judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, another appeal was filed on
behalf of informant bearing Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025 (Fateh Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) and the above appeal was decided on
30.10.2025, confirming the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court by
which the revisionists were acquitted. It is submitted that the above fact was
brought in the knowledge of the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.82 of
2025, despite that the above appeal was decided and impugned judgment and
order dated 29.11.2025 was passed. The revisionists have filed certified copy
of judgments of both the appellate courts along with this revision and the
Trial Court record has also been received which affirms the position, that
against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dated 31.01.2025,
two appeals were filed, one by the informant and other by the State. The
appeal of the first informant was decided earlier confirming the judgment
and order of the learned Trial Court.
6. Since the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court had merged with
the judgment and order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2025, thereafter, the proceedings before the
Appellate Court had become infructuous or non-est, and due to the judgment
and order dated 30.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025 the judgment
and order of the learned Trial Court dated 31.01.2025 had merged in the
judgment and order of the appellate court, therefore, further hearing in the
present appeal against the same judgment and order of the learned Trial
Court would amount to review of judgment of the appellate court itself,
which is not permissible under law. Consequently, the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 82 of 2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be
set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, this revision is allowed, the impugned
judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 is set aside, and the conviction and
consequential order is also set aside.
8. Trial Court record be returned.
September 10, 2026
AdityaG
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…