HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8905 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. On 13.08.2026, office was directed to submit an explanation with regard to proper indexing of record of the Trial Court. Office has submitted explanation, in this regard which appears satisfactory, is taken on record. 3. An explanation of the presiding officer of the appellate court called in which he has denied the allegation of any foulplay and has stated that he has passed the impugned order in ignorance of earlier judgment passed by another appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025, after arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties. 4. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Court No.3, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025 (State Vs. Virendra Pal Singh and Another). 5. By the impugned judgment and order the learned appellate court has partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 of the learned Trial Court, whereby the acquittal of the accused under Sections- 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Case No.64 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2013, was affirmed. But the acquittal under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was set aside and the accused were convicted under Section- 498A I.P.C and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibtion Act and were given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation for a Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Birender Pal Singh And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) period of one year for maintaining good conduct and peace. 6. The contention on behalf of the revisionists is that against the same judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, another appeal was filed on behalf of informant bearing Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2025 (Fateh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) and the above appeal was decided on 30.10.2025, confirming the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court by which the revisionists were acquitted. It is submitted that the above fact was brought in the knowledge of the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025, despite that the above appeal was decided and impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 was passed. The revisionists have filed certified copy of judgments of both the appellate courts along with this revision and the Trial Court record has also been received which affirms the position, that against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dated 31.01.2025, two appeals were filed, one by the informant and other by the State. The appeal of the first informant was decided earlier confirming the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. 6. Since the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court had merged with the judgment and order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2025, thereafter, the proceedings before the Appellate Court had become infructuous or non-est, and due to the judgment and order dated 30.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2025 the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dated 31.01.2025 had merged in the judgment and order of the appellate court, therefore, further hearing in the present appeal against the same judgment and order of the learned Trial Court would amount to review of judgment of the appellate court itself, which is not permissible under law. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion, this revision is allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 is set aside, and the conviction and consequential order is also set aside. 8. Trial Court record be returned. September 10, 2026 AdityaG CRLR No. 8905 of 2025 2 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad