Reserved on 8.12.2025 Delivered on 19.3.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 755 of 1987 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. This criminal appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant – Santosh Kumar Singh with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 9.2.1987 passed by Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3 of of 1987 (State vs. S.K. Singh) under Section 350 Cr.P.C. By the said order, a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed upon the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, a notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. was issued against the appellant for his failure to attend the court on 29.10.1986 and 17.11.1986 in connection with the Criminal Sessions Trial No.328 of 1985 (State vs. Asha) under Section 302 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.138/1983. The appellant in pursuance of the notice appeared before the court on the date of order, but he could not offer any satisfactory explanation regarding his non-appearance. It was also noted by the learned trial court that the appellant was taken into custody but he escaped from the custody for which separate proceedings were initiated against him. Consequently, a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed upon the appellant. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : J.Sengar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Santosh Kumar Singh .....Appellant(s) State .....Respondent(s) 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is bad in eyes of law as it has been passed without considering the facts of the case. The appellant, who was Investigating Officer of aforesaid sessions trial, could not appear before the court on the dates fixed due to other liability related to his Department and his absence was not deliberate. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA submitted that the appellant even failed to tender any satisfactory explanation before the concerned court for his non appearance. Same is also reflected in the impugned order. Even the conduct of the appellant, after his appearance, was not proper. Even he escaped from the custody of the concerned court for which separate proceedings were instituted. Surrounding circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had wilfully defaulted the orders of the concerned court. 5. After considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, it is relevant to mention that this criminal appeal is not maintainable in light of the provision laid down under Section 376(b) Cr.P.C. which is as follows:- “376. No Appeal in petty cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 374, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any of the following cases, namely :- (a) ………. (b) where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine; ………. …………..” 6. From the impugned order, it is apparent that only a fine of Rs.100/- has CRLA No. 755 of 1987 2 been imposed in this case. 7. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the case, this criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. March 19, 2026 SK CRLA No. 755 of 1987 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad