In a significant procedural intervention in criminal appellate practice, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine whether an appeal under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be dismissed solely because the accused’s lawyer failed to appear, flagging a serious lapse by the appellate court that went to the root of fair hearing and due process.
The controversy began when Sanjay Yadav, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by a Gorakhpur magistrate in May 2022, challenged his conviction before the Sessions Court within limitation. While the appeal was pending, and with the accused stated to be continuously in jail, the appellate court dismissed the appeal in October 2023 for default due to the absence of his counsel.
Months later, Yadav moved an application seeking restoration and condonation of delay, which was rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court through a criminal revision. Counsel for the revisionist argued that dismissing a criminal appeal for non-appearance of counsel was contrary to settled law and statutory mandate.
The Court came down firmly on the practice of dismissing criminal appeals for default, holding that such an approach is “absolutely void ab initio.” Relying on Section 425 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 384 CrPC) and Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that an appellate court cannot shut out an accused merely because of non-representation. Quoting the Apex Court, the Court noted that the appeal cannot be dismissed “merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused,” and the court is obliged to appoint an amicus curiae if necessary.
Consequently, the Court set aside both the order dismissing the appeal in default and the subsequent order rejecting the delay condonation plea, restored the original criminal appeal to its file, and directed the appellate court to decide it expeditiously on merits.
Case Title: Sanjay Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 8411 of 2025
Coram: Justice Abdul Shahid
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Kunwar Abhishek Singh, Suresh Pratap Singh
Advocate for Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
