Dismissal of Criminal Appeals for Default Is Contrary to Law: Allahabad High Court Explains

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed merely due to the absence of the appellant’s counsel and restored an appeal arising from a cheque dishonour conviction, observing that such dismissal is contrary to settled principles of criminal procedure.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Abdul Shahid while allowing a criminal revision filed by one Sanjay Yadav, who had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a complaint case instituted by one Mithilesh Narayan Pandey.

Sanjay Yadav was convicted and sentenced on 20 May 2022 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (First), Gorakhpur. Challenging the conviction, he preferred a criminal appeal before the sessions court at Gorakhpur within the statutory period of limitation. The High Court noted that at the relevant time, the appellant was continuously lodged in jail.

However, on 26 October 2023, the appellate court dismissed the appeal in default on account of the absence of the appellant’s counsel. No adjudication on merits took place. Aggrieved by this dismissal, Sanjay Yadav subsequently filed another appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of about eight months and setting aside of the dismissal order. This application was rejected by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur on 17 September 2025.

Challenging both orders, the revisionist approached the High Court, contending that dismissal of a criminal appeal in default is impermissible in law and that the appellate court was under a duty to decide the appeal on merits, even in the absence of counsel. It was argued that the proper course would have been to appoint an amicus curiae and proceed with the hearing.

The High Court examined the statutory framework under Section 425 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision makes it clear that a criminal appeal cannot be summarily dismissed without granting the appellant or his advocate a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Court also noted that where the appellant is in custody, the appellate court must exercise greater caution before disposing of the appeal without hearing.

Justice Abdul Shahid relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Muruganandam v. State, where it was held that criminal appeals cannot be dismissed for non-representation and that courts are obliged to appoint an amicus curiae if the accused is unrepresented.

The High Court observed that the dismissal of Sanjay Yadav’s appeal in default was “absolutely void ab initio” and not in consonance with the mandatory procedure laid down by law. 

Court further held that there was no legal requirement for filing a second criminal appeal. Since the earlier criminal appeal had been filed within limitation, it continued to remain valid in the eyes of law and could not be rendered non est by an illegal dismissal for default. Consequently, the order rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also found to be unsustainable and devoid of legal significance.

Setting aside both the orders dated 26 October 2023 and 17 September 2025, the High Court restored the original criminal appeal to its original number. The appellate court at Gorakhpur has been directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and strictly on merits. With these directions, the criminal revision was allowed.

Case Title: Sanjay Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: January 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Abdul Shahid