SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1026

N. P. SINGH, A. M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Bani Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI - The short question that we are called upon to decide in this appeal is whether the High Court at Allahabad was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellants against the order of conviction and sentence issued by the trial court, for non-prosecution.

2. The facts relevant for our consideration can be briefly stated. On 13.6.1979, the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, recorded an order convicting the appellants under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 100/- each. The appellants filed an appeal against this order in the High Court of Allahabad. On 18.6.1979, the appeal was admitted by the High Court and notice was issued. The High Court also issued an interim stay on the execution of the sentence and the realization of fine while granting bail to the appellants. On 28.11.1990, the matter came up for hearing before the High Court. While dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, the Court recorded the following order :

"The List has been revised. No one present to argue the case on behalf of the appellant. Sri T.B.Islam A.C.A. is present on



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

IN Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1533: Singh v. ... State of M.P. , (2024) 3 SCC 663. ... State of Uttar Pradesh

**Explanation**: The provided case law entry contains no keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated). It appears to be a citation with an incomplete or truncated name ("Singh v. ... State of M.P."), followed by a reference to "State of Uttar Pradesh," but lacks any explicit treatment language from subsequent decisions. Treatment is entirely unclear based on the given information, warranting inclusion here per instructions to err on the side of caution.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top