The High Court recorded a composite criminal appeal filed by the appellant Suddhu. The court noted the absence of the primary counsel and the presence of the Additional Government Advocate, then consigned the appeal to the file without deciding the merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 575 of 1998
Appellant :- Suddhu Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Hanumant Lal Yadav,M.P. Yadav,Vidya Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Mr. Vidya Bhushan Pandey,learned counsel for the appellant is not present, however Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned Advocate has not appeared in Criminal Appeal No.495 of 1998.
Since appellant Suddhu has preferred a composite appeal being Criminal Appeal No.495 of 1998, Accordingly, the present appeal be consigned to record.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 11.3.2022 A.K. Singh
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.16 16:29:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Suddhu
State of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Saroj Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
