Taj Mohammad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 412

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
Taj Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aamir Dabas, Adv. Mr. Shams Khawaja, Adv. Ms. Qurratulain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Ms. Warisha Farasat, Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Adv.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.2562 of 2017. The revisionist is before this Court. He was convicted in Complaint Case No.1808 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2016, his conviction and sentence were confirmed. Aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal confirming the order of the Trial Court, the appellant herein moved the stated revision petition which ultimately culminated in the order impugned.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It would reveal that the learned counsel for the appellant as also the appellant were absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order would further reveal that after noting their absence, the Court perused the records and ultimately passed the order impugned. However, the order does not reflect consideration of the case on merits. In o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document