HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1168 of 1987 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section - 351 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 11.02.1987, passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 1987, arising out of S.T. No. 398 of 1985 (State Vs. Ram Das), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section - 350 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Perusal of record shows that appellant Sub Inspector Shiv Saran Singh was a witness of inquest in S.T. No. 398 of 1985 (State Vs. Ram Das), under Section - 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Bah, District - Agra. He was summoned by the trial court for 03.02.1987 for his evidence and summon was served upon him but he did not appear before the court. Thereafter, the trial court has issued bailable warrants in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- against him and on the next date S.I. Shiv Saran Singh has appeared before the trial court. He has submitted a reply that on 03.02.1987 he has gone to conduct a raid in Rajasthan and thus, he could not appear before the trial Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : , Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shiv Saran Singh .....Appellant(s) State .....Respondent(s) court. It appears that learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section - 350 Cr.P.C. merely because the said S.I. Shiv Saran Singh has not sent any application to the court for not appearing before the court on 03.02.1987. 4. The main contention of learned Amicus Curaie for appellant is that there is absolutely nothing to show that appellant has failed to appear before the court without just excuse and in fact he has provided proper explanation regarding his non appearance before the trial court. It is further submitted that appellant has appeared on the very next date before the trial court and thus, it was not expedient in the interest of justice that he should be punished under Section - 350 Cr.P.C.. Further, no proper opportunity of showing cause has been provided to the appellant before passing the impugned order. 5. The argument raised by learned Amicus Curiae has substance. It is apparent from impugned order that the appellant has provided an explanation to the trial court that on 03.02.1987 he has gone to conduct a raid in Rajasthan, due to which he could not appear before the court and on the very next date he has appeared before the trial court for his evidence. There is nothing to show that appellant has failed to appear before the trial court on 03.02.1987 without any just excuse. Further, there is nothing to show that any notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be punished under Section - 350 Cr.P.C.. In view of aforesaid attending facts and circumstances, it was not expedient in the interest of justice that appellant should have been tried for the alleged mischief. It is also apparent from provisions of Section - 350 Cr.P.C. that in such a case the court has to follow, as nearly as may CRLA No. 1168 of 1987 2 be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials but it appears that no such procedure has been followed by the trial court. 6. In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.02.1987 is quashed. 7. The appeal is allowed. 8. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant. He shall be paid remuneration, as per Rules. October 9, 2025 S Rawat CRLA No. 1168 of 1987 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad