The Court held that where an appellant has served the full sentence and is not represented, the criminal appeal may be dismissed as infructuous. This judgment upholds and applies existing procedural precedent, specifically within the administration of criminal appeals under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, and has a binding effect within the jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRJA/30/2020 of IRSHAD ALI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010027702020 |
| Date of Registration | 24-02-2020 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand High Court jurisdiction on similar procedural questions |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a criminal appeal becomes infructuous when the appellant has served out the sentence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that as the appellant (convict) had already served the imposed sentence and was released, and since no one appeared on his behalf to press the appeal, the criminal jail appeal was liable to be dismissed as infructuous. The dismissal was not based on merits but due to the factual position that the appellant had served the sentence in full. The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the absence of further relief that could be granted to the appellant and in the lack of representation. The custody report confirming release was noted. Accordingly, no adjudication took place on the merits of the conviction or sentence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a fine under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. A custody report confirmed that the appellant had served the sentence and been released. No one appeared on his behalf at the hearing, leading the Court to dismiss the appeal as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Uttarakhand on the procedural point of dismissing infructuous appeals. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on questions of procedural dismissal of appeals where sentence is served out. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that criminal appeals may be dismissed as infructuous if the appellant has served the entire sentence and is not represented at the hearing.
- The order clarifies that no decision on merits is undertaken in such a scenario.
- Lawyers representing appellants in custody or jail appeals should ensure representation is arranged, especially if release is imminent or occurred.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the absence of representation for the appellant at the hearing.
- State Counsel produced a custody report establishing that the appellant had completed his sentence and was released.
- In light of there being no one to press the appeal and the sentence having already been served, the Court concluded the appeal had become infructuous.
- Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed not on merits but due to the absence of any substantive relief possible.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- None; no one appeared for the appellant.
Respondent (State):
- State Counsel produced instructions confirming the appellant had served the sentence and had been released.
- Submitted that, consequently, nothing survived in the appeal.
Factual Background
The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (with default stipulation) under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Nainital. The appeal was filed via jail authorities. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant completed his sentence and was released. On the date of hearing, no representative appeared for him, and the State Counsel confirmed by instructions that the sentence had been served out, prompting the Court to dismiss the appeal as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment relates to the procedural handling of criminal appeals under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as applicable in Uttarakhand.
- The order did not undertake a substantive interpretation of the Act or of the Criminal Procedure Code, but clarified the effect of the factual event of sentence completion during pendency of a criminal appeal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The only procedural aspect clarified is that production of a custody report and instructions from State Counsel confirming the convict’s release provides a factual basis for dismissal of a criminal appeal as infructuous in the absence of representation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing practice of dismissing infructuous appeals is affirmed; no new law or overruling of precedent.