Supreme Court – Daily Orders
State Of U.P vs Dinesh Singh on 7 July, 2026
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 18645/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-01-2026
in SA No. 763/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
STATE OF U.P & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DINESH SINGH Respondent(s)
IA No. 186406/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS, IA No. 186404/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 186405/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 07-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharamadhikari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay in refiling is condoned.
2. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that
suspension of sentence does not wipe out conviction.
Signature Not Verified
Once conviction stands, the Clause (a) of the second
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2026.07.07
15:33:43 IST
Reason: proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
and Clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-Rule (2) of
1
Rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 would apply.
It is argued that the decision of this Court in Shankar
Das vs. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 358 would not
apply to the fact situation as that was a case where
the person was accused of embezzlement of Rs.500 which
he had already returned and, therefore, in the
circumstances a major penalty was not warranted.
However, since in the present the respondent has been
convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and has been sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment, no punishment other than major punishment
is required. In such circumstances, it is argued, the
view taken by the High Court is in teeth of the
decision of this Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate
Education (Administration), Madras vs. S. Nagur Meera,
(1995) 3 SCC 377.
3. The matter requires consideration.
4. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.
5. In the meantime, the impugned order passed by the
High Court shall remain stayed.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
2
