JITENDRA KUMAR RODEversusUNION OF INDIA

512                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 512                [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A                         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE
                                        v.
                              UNION OF INDIA
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2023)
B                               APRIL 24, 2023
            [KRISHNA MURARI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974: s. 385 – Procedure for
      hearing appeals not dismissed summarily – Conviction and sentence
      of the appellant-Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railway
C
      u/s. 7 of PC Act by the trial court – In appeal before the High Court
      though the record revealed that the entire record of the matter before
      trial court has been lost and is not traceable and the documents
      sent as reconstructed documents do not constitute the relevant trial
      court record, the High Court upheld the conviction despite going
D     into the merits – Legality of – Held : Accused, in appeal, has a right
      to have the record perused by the Appellate Court – Job of the
      court of appeal is not to depend on the lower Court’s judgment to
      uphold the conviction but, based on the record available before it
      duly called from the trial court and the arguments advanced before
      it, to come to a conclusion thereon – Language of s. 385 shows that
E
      the court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for
      the records of the case from the concerned court below – It is an
      obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal
      of such records would an appeal be decided – Non-compliance
      with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon
F     specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a
      violation of Art. 21 – Relevant trial court record has not been
      reconstructed, despite the efforts of the courts below – Furthermore,
      28 years have been passed since the commission of the offence –
      Ordering a retrial is not in the interest of justice and would not
      serve any fruitful purpose – Thus, the order of the trial court and
G
      the High Court set aside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
            Constitution of India : Art. 21 – Protection of rights under –
      Held: Personal liberty cut down in the absence of fair legal
      procedure is an affront to the sanctity of Art. 21 – Fair legal
      procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal
H
                                       512
        JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                               513


to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court – Same can             A
only be done when the record is available with the court of appeal.
        Judicial directions : Digitization of Records – Issuance of
directions to the High Courts to ensure that in cases of criminal
trial, and civil suits, the digitization of records to be duly undertaken
with promptitude at all District Courts for smooth judicial process –       B
Issuance of SOP for digital preservation – All High Courts to
establish Judicial Digital Repositories as well as standardized system.
      Judicial notice: Digitization of records – In accordance with
the SOP issued, private entities providing specialized service have
been contracted, and a robust system of responsibility and                  C
accountability to be developed and fostered to ensure the proper
protection and regular updation of all records facilitating the smooth
functioning of the judicial process – Judicial notice taken of the
said fact.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                        D
      HELD: 1.1 If a right of production of documents at the trial
stage exists, it is a natural corollary that the High Court, sitting
in appeal, must benefit from those documents. In the considered
view of this Court, this is a demand of the said sacrosanct
requirement. [Para 18][520-F]                                               E
      1.2 In the instant case, despite efforts, documents such as
the witness statements, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
are neither available nor have been able to be reconstructed.
Therefore, upholding conviction in the absence of such documents
cannot be said to be in consonance with due process of law and              F
fairness. [Para 19][520-G]
      1.3 Once a violation of a right under Article 21 is established,
that is undoubtedly sufficient to set aside a conviction.
Nonetheless, it is essential to appreciate what the law of procedure
says in this regard. After all, it cannot be gainsaid that personal
                                                                            G
liberty cut down in the absence of fair legal procedure is an affront
to the sanctity of Article 21. [Para 20][521-A-B]
     1.4 A bare reading of the s. 385 CrPC makes it clear that
when appeals are not dismissed summarily, the appellate court
                                                                            H
514            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     shall call for the records of the Court below except in cases where
      the question for consideration is the legality of a sentence. There
      is undoubtedly a compulsion upon the appellate court to call for
      the record and then proceed to examine the merits of a case
      before it. That, as is prima facie observable, is not the case before
      this court. [Para 22][522-B-C]
B
            1.5 Sub-section, 2 of Section 385, requires that the parties
      are heard in light of the records received by the Court. The
      documents undoubtedly need to include the essential documents
      necessary to properly appreciate the appeal on its merits. Even
      the depositions of the witnesses, both prosecution and defence,
C     have not been re-constructed and are not available for the Court.
      [Para 31][526-G; 527-A]
             1.6 The Court below, by taking a mutually contradictory
      view, proceeded to decide the appeal on merits sentencing the
      accused, forgetting that the challenge was also for conviction.
D     And yet did not deal with the merits of the appeal, laying specific
      challenge to the judgment of conviction. The whole approach is
      illegal and erroneous. Firstly, it is observed that the record was
      missing, and then it casts the onus to produce the same on the
      appellant. [Para 32][527-B]
E           1.7 The accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record
      perused by the Appellate Court and, therefore, upholding a
      conviction by merely having noted that the counsel for the accused
      not having the record at the time of filing the appeal is “doubtful”
      and that “no one can believe” the appeal would have been filed
F     without perusing the record, as observed by the High Court is
      not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on
      the lower Court’s judgment to uphold the conviction but, based
      on the record available before it duly called from the trial court
      and the arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion
      thereon. [Para 33][527-C-D]
G
            1.8 In the facts of the instant case, the alleged offence was
      committed on 21.3.1995, and the judgment of the trial court was
      delivered on 7.12.1999. More than 28 years have passed since
      the commission of the offence. The relevant trial court record
      has not been able to be reconstructed, despite the efforts of the
H
        JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                          515


courts below. Hence, ordering a retrial is not in the interest of      A
justice and would not serve any fruitful purpose. The time elapsed
must be taken into consideration by the Court, and it is stressed
on that, only after taking due note of and taking steps to abide by
the warning issued by this Court. [Para 34][527-E-G]
      State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another (2004) 4            B
      SCC 6 : [2004] 2 SCR 818 – referred to.
      Sita Ram & Others v. State 1981 Cr.LJ, 65 – referred to.
       1.9 Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails
protection of liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence
of fair legal procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the             C
opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the
conclusions drawn by the trial court. The same can only be done
when the record is available with the Court of Appeal. That is the
mandate of Section 385 CrPC. Therefore, it is not within prudence
to lay down a straightjacket formula, the non-compliance with          D
the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon
specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is found
in the instant case. [Para 35][527-G-H; 528-A-B]
      1.10 The language of Section 385 shows that the Court            E
sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the
records of the case from the concerned Court below. The same
is an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the
perusal of such records would an appeal be decided. [Para
36][528-C]
                                                                       F
      1.11 The impugned judgment and the conviction passed by
Special Judge is set aside. [Para 37][528-D]
      1.12. As regards, the digitization of records are issued the
following directions:
       (i) The Registrar General of the High Courts shall ensure       G
that in all cases of criminal trial, as well as civil suits, the
digitization of records must be duly undertaken with promptitude
at all District Courts, preferably within the time prescribed for
filing an appeal within the laws of procedure.
                                                                       H
516            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            (ii) The concerned District Judge, once the system of
      digitization along with the system of authentication of the digitized
      records is in place in their judgeship, to ensure that the records
      so digitized are verified as expeditiously as possible.
             (iii) A continually updated record of Register of Records
B     digitized shall be maintained with periodic reports being sent to
      the concerned High Courts for suitable directions. [Para 42][529-
      C-F]
            M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC
            544 : [1979] 1 SCR 192; Bani Singh v. State of U.P.
C           (1996) 4 SCC 720 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 247; Shyam
            Deo Pandey and Others v. State of Bihar (1971) 1 SCC
            855 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 133; Biswanath Ghosh v. State
            of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 55 : [1987] 2 SCR 305;
            Dhananjay Rai alias Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar 2022
            SCC Online 880; V. K. Verma v. Central Bureau of
D           Investigation (2014) 3 SCC 485 : [2014] 1 SCR 1063;
            Ramesh Kaushik v. State of Delhi 2022 SCC Online
            Del 4185; Raghuvir Sahai and Others v. State of U.P.
            Criminal Appeal No.786 of 1979; Avdesh Rai and
            Others v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1984;
E           Tej Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. 2015 SCC
            Online All 6581; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
            (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103; Queen Empress v.
            Khimat Singh 1889 A.W.N. 55; King – Emperor v. Dahu
            Raut AIR 1935 PC 89; Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P.
            1986 SCC OnLine All 211; Vir Pal v. State 1999 SCC
F           OnLine All 1348; Hira Lal v. State of U.P. 1999 SCC
            OnLine All 1392; Bhunda and Ors. V. State of U.P.
            2001 SCC OnLine All 864 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference

G     [2014] 1 SCR 1063               referred to          Para 9
      [1971] Suppl. SCR 133           referred to          Para 11
      [2004] 2 SCR 818                referred to          Para 11
      [1979] 1 SCR 192                referred to          Para 15
H     [2010] 4 SCR 103                referred to          Para 17
         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                517


AIR 1935 PC 89                     referred to           Para 25              A
[1987] 2 SCR 305                   referred to           Para 26
[1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 247            referred to           Para 28
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1269 of 2023.                                                                 B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLA No. 625 of 1999.
     Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Tushar D.
Bhelkar, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                                                              C
     K. M. Natraj, ASG, Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Shailesh Madiyal,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SANJAY KAROL, J.
      1. Leave granted.                                                       D

       2. The questions which arise for our consideration are; One,
whether, in the absence of the records of the Court of Trial, the appellate
Court could have upheld the conviction and enhanced the quantum of
fine? And Two, whether, given the language employed under Section
385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present situation            E
constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights under Article
21 of the Constitution of India?
       3. The captioned appeal arises out of the final judgment in Criminal
Appeal No. 625 of 1999 dated 23.11.2022 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow by which the Appellant’s conviction        F
by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Lucknow in
Case No. 7 of 1996 was upheld.
      4. To facilitate effective adjudication of the present lis, it is
essential to appreciate the judgments rendered by the learned courts
below.                                                                        G
       5. The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 04.12.1999, convicted
the Appellant herein, under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter, PC Act for short). After analysing
the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded as under:
                                                                              H
518            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           “The prosecution has been successful in proving that accused
            J.K Rode being working at the post of a Public Servant as Assistant
            Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow made a
            demand of Rupees Five Hundred from Chief Ticket Inspector Shri
            Jai Prakash Narayan Upadhyay on 03.05.95 to dispose of the
            charge sheet issued against him and he was caught red handed
B
            receiving the bribe on 03.05.95 and he received Rs. 500 (Rupees
            five hundred) from said J.P.N Upadhya being posted as a public
            servant misusing his post as public servant for his gain in corrupt
            and illegal manner. Thus, the offence under section 7, 13(1) and
            13(2) of the PC Act 1988 is proved against the accused and he is
C           liable to be punished for these charges. Accused is on bail and his
            bail bonds are discharged. Accused should be taken into custody
            immediately.”
                                                           (Emphasis supplied)
              6. Having so recorded, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant
D     to rigorous imprisonment of one year and rupees five hundred by way of
      fine (in default thereof, further imprisonment of six months) under Section
      7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment of two years and rupees five
      hundred by way of fine (in default thereof, further imprisonment of six
      months) under Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
E           Proceedings before the High Court
             7. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the High
      Court admitted the petitioner’s appeal on 07.12.1999. A perusal of the
      Order dated 04.03.2016 reveals that despite repeated summoning of
      records of the trial, no reply was received from the Court concerned
F     and as a result, the District Judge was asked to furnish an explanation
      and, in any event, take steps for reconstruction of the record.
             7.1 The record further reveals that “the entire record has been
      lost and is not traceable” and the documents sent as “reconstructed
      documents” do not constitute the relevant trial court record. They were
G     found to be not to be in accordance with Rules nor endorsed by the
      Central Bureau of Investigation.
             8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2022,
      upheld the conviction despite having noted on an earlier occasion that
      the reconstruction of records was not in accordance with rules and the
H
         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                 519
                   [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

admission of non-availability of material on record, for which the Appellant   A
herein was in no manner responsible. Significantly, despite arguments,
the Court did not discuss the merits of conviction.
      9. However, the conviction was upheld and taking note of the
decision of this Court in V.K. Verma v. Central Bureau of
Investigation1, the sentence was reduced to time already undergone             B
and the fine enhanced to Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand.
       The Present Appeal
     10. Being aggrieved by the Order of conviction being upheld, the
Appellant has preferred the present appeal.
                                                                               C
      It is apparent on the face of the record that the record could
never be reconstructed in its entirety, especially the relevant ones by the
concerned District Court. The Court, nonetheless, found sufficiency in
the partly reconstructed record, which included only a few documents,
such as the FIR and upheld the conviction on merits.
                                                                               D
       11. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the law is
settled on the issue, and in the absence of such records, a conviction
cannot be stated to be on firm grounds and is liable to be set aside. The
learned counsel places reliance on Shyam Deo Pandey and Others
v. State of Bihar2, State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another3.
He further placed reliance on High Court decisions, namely Ramesh              E
Kaushik v. State of Delhi4 of the Delhi High Court; Raghuvir Sahai
and Others v. State of U.P.5, Avdesh Rai and Others v. State of
U.P.6 and Tej Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P.7 of the Allahabad
High Court.
       Consideration by this Court                                             F
      12. A conviction of any nature permanently marks a person’s
character. It would be, in the specific circumstances of this case,
unjustified. This is not to say that five hundred rupees as far back as
1995 was a small or insignificant amount; however, when the possibility
1
  (2014) 3 SCC 485, Paragraphs 8 – 13.
                                                                               G
2
  (1971) 1 SCC 855
3
  (2004) 4 SCC 6
4
  2022 SCC Online Del 4185
5
  Criminal Appeal No.786 of 1979
6
  Criminal Appeal No.346 of 1984
7
  2015 SCC Online All 6581                                                     H
520               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     of appeal is extinguished due to the absence of essential material, the
      perusal and consideration of which is required to take stock of the matter
      and then uphold or reverse, as the case may be, then the benefit of the
      doubt has to be extended to the accused when he is in no manner
      responsible for the same.
B           13. We must consider whether the non-availability of trial court
      records before the High Court and upholding conviction, despite the
      absence thereof, infringes the right to life and liberty of the accused
      enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
             14. It is well settled that following “procedure established by law”
C     in a criminal prosecution is a sacrosanct requirement.
           15. In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra8 (three-Judge
      Bench), Krishna Iyer J. writing for the Court observed that:
               “11. In short, a first appeal from the Sessions Court to the High
               Court, as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, manifests
D              this value upheld in Article 21.”
              16. It was further observed that every step that makes the right of
      appeal fruitful is obligatory, and every action or inaction which stultifies
      it is unfair and, ergo, unconstitutional.
             17. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)9(two-Judge
E
      Bench), this Court has also noted that the due process of law shall deem
      to include fairness in trial. The Court gives a right to the accused to
      receive all documents and statements and move applications for the
      production of records relating to the case.
               18. If a right of production of documents at the trial stage exists,
F
      it is a natural corollary that the High Court, sitting in appeal, must benefit
      from those documents. In the considered view of this Court, this is a
      demand of the abovementioned sacrosanct requirement.
            19. As we have noted earlier, in the present case, despite efforts,
      documents such as the witness statements, statements under Section
G     313 Cr.P.C. are neither available nor have been able to be reconstructed.
      Therefore, upholding conviction in the absence of such documents cannot
      be said to be in consonance with due process of law and fairness.

      8
          (1978) 3 SCC 544
      9
H         (2010) 6 SCC 1
         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                   521
                   [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

        20. Once a violation of a right under Article 21 is established, that    A
is undoubtedly sufficient to set aside a conviction. Nonetheless, it is
essential to appreciate what the law of procedure says in this regard.
After all, it cannot be gainsaid that personal liberty cut down in the absence
of fair legal procedure is an affront to the sanctity of Article 21. To this
effect, the bench in M.H Hoskot (supra) said:
                                                                                 B
       “24. We may follow up the import of Maneka Gandhi and
       crystallise the conclusion. Maneka Gandhi case has laid down
       that personal liberty cannot be cut out or cut down without fair
       legal procedure. Enough has been set out to establish that a prisoner,
       deprived of his freedom by court sentence but entitled to appeal
       against such verdict, can claim, as part of his protection under          C
       Article 21 and as implied in his statutory right to appeal, the
       necessary concomitant of right to counsel to prepare and argue
       his appeal.”
      21. The instant case is governed by Section 385 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is extracted for ease of reference:              D

       “385. Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed
       summarily.—(1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal
       summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which
       such appeal will be heard to be given—
                                                                                 E
              (i) to the Appellant or his pleader;
              (ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint on
              this behalf;
              (iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case
              instituted upon complaint to the complainant;                      F
              (iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378, to the
              accused, and shall also furnish such officer, complainant
              and accused with a copy of the grounds of appeal.
          (2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the
          case, if such record is not already available in that Court, and       G
          hear the parties: Provided that if the appeal is only as to the
          extent or the legality of the sentence, the Court may dispose of
          the appeal without sending for the record.

                                                                                 H
522               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A              (3) Where the only ground for appeal from a conviction is the
               alleged severity of the sentence, the Appellant shall not, except
               with the leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any
               other ground.”
                                                            (Emphasis supplied)
B            22. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that when appeals
      are not dismissed summarily, the Appellate Court shall call for the records
      of the Court below except in cases where the question for consideration
      is the legality of a sentence. There is undoubtedly a compulsion upon
      the Appellate Court to call for the record and then proceed to examine
C     the merits of a case before it. That, as is prima facie observable, is not
      the case before us.
             23. One of the earlier cases on this issue is the judgment of the
      Calcutta High Court in Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh10, wherein
      the District Judge failed to trace or discover the lost records. The Court
D     observed that this loss of records has lost the Appellant, a right he is
      entitled to, that of hearing by a higher court. In such situations, no other
      recourse remains than to order trial de-novo. The judgment in Khimat
      Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in Abhai Raj Singh
      (supra).

E            24. The abovementioned requirement is found in the Old Code
      (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, now repealed), under Section 423 as
      well. Section 423 of the 1898 Code, corresponds to Section 385 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
              25. The Privy Council in King – Emperor v. Dahu Raut11, stated
F     that where a conviction is appealed against, once summary dismissal
      fails, the provision of Section 423 as to sending for the record are clearly
      “peremptory”, and there can be no room for revision at that stage. This
      has been reiterated by this Court in In Shyam Deo Pandey (supra),
      observing that, calling for the record of the Court below is an obligation,
      in the following terms:
G
               “18. Coming to Section 423, which has already been quoted above,
               it deals with powers of the appellate Court in disposing of the
               appeal on merits. It is obligatory for the appellate Court to send

      10
           1889 A.W.N. 55
      11
H          AIR 1935 PC 89
            JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                               523
                      [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

          for the record of the case, if it is not already before the Court.    A
          This requirement is necessary to be complied with to enable the
          Court to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the order
          or judgment appealed against not only with reference to the
          judgment but also with reference to the records which will be the
          basis on which the judgment is founded. The correctness or
                                                                                B
          otherwise of the findings recorded in the judgment, on the basis of
          the attack made against the same, cannot be adjudicated upon
          without reference to the evidence, oral and documentary and other
          materials relevant for the purpose. The reference to “such record”
          in “after perusing such record” is to the record of the case sent
          for by the appellate Court.”                                          C
                                                        (Emphasis supplied)
        26. This Court in Biswanath Ghosh v. State of W.B.12 (two-Judge
Bench) observed that an Appellate Court allowing a conviction without
having the records before it and the evidence adduced by the prosecution
is a flagrant miscarriage of justice.                                           D

      27. This Court in Abhai Raj Singh (supra) (two-Judge Bench)
while dealing with a conviction by the Trial Court under Section 302 of
the IPC, 1860, while remanding the matter for consideration afresh by
the High Court observed:
                                                                                E
          “8. It has been the consistent view taken by several High Courts
          that when records are destroyed by fire or on account of natural
          or unnatural calamities, reconstruction should be ordered. In
          Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh [1889 AWN 55] the view taken
          was that the provisions of Section 423(1) of the Criminal Procedure
          Code, 1898 (in short “the old Code”) made it obligatory for the       F
          Court to obtain and examine the record at the time of hearing.
          When it was not possible to do so, the only available course was a
          direction for reconstruction. The said view was reiterated more
          than six decades back in Sevugaperumal, Re [AIR 1943 Mad
          391 (2) : 44 Cri LJ 611] . The view has been reiterated by several    G
          High Courts as well, even thereafter.
          9. The High Court did not keep the relevant aspects and
          considerations in view and came to the abrupt conclusion that
          reconstruction was not possible merely because there was no
12
     (1987) 2 SCC 55                                                            H
524      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     response from the Sessions Judge. The order for reconstruction
      was on 1-11-1993 and the judgment of the High Court is in Criminal
      Appeal No. 1970 of 1979 dated 25-2-1994. The order was followed
      in Criminal Appeal No. 1962 of 1979 disposed of on 16-8-1995. It
      is not clear as to why the High Court did not require the Sessions
      Court to furnish the information about reconstruction of records;
B
      and/or itself take initiative by issuing positive directions as to the
      manner, method and nature of attempts, efforts and exercise to
      be undertaken to effectively achieve the purpose in the best
      interests of justice and to avoid ultimately any miscarriage of justice
      resulting from any lapse, inaction or inappropriate or perfunctory
C     action, in this regard; particularly when no action was taken by
      the High Court to pass necessary orders for about a decade when
      it received information about destruction of record. The course
      adopted by the High Court, if approved, would encourage dubious
      persons and detractors of justice by allowing undeserved premium
      to violators of law by acting hand in glove with those anti-social
D
      elements coming to hold sway, behind the screen, in the ordinary
      and normal course of justice.
      10. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remit
      the matter back for fresh consideration. It is to be noted at this
      juncture that one of the respondents i.e. Om Pal has died during
E     the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The High Court
      shall direct reconstruction of the records within a period of six
      months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available
      or possible sources with the assistance of the prosecuting agency
      as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel. If it
F     is possible to have the records reconstructed to enable the High
      Court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner
      envisaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals and
      dispose of the same, on their own merits and in accordance with
      law. If it finds that reconstruction is not practicable but by ordering
      retrial interest of justice could be better served — adopt that course
G     and direct retrial — and from that stage law shall take its normal
      course. If only reconstruction is not possible to facilitate the High
      Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of
      retrial and fresh adjudication by the Sessions Court is also rendered
      impossible due to loss of vitally important basic records — in that
H     case and situation only, the direction given in the impugned judgment
         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                 525
                   [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

       shall operate and the matter shall stand closed. The appeals are        A
       accordingly disposed of.”
                                                      (Emphasis supplied)
      28. Recently, this Court in Dhananjay Rai alias Guddu Rai v.
State of Bihar13 (two-Judges) took note of a Judgment rendered in
Bani Singh v. State of U.P.14, as under :                                      B

       “14. We have carefully considered the view expressed in the
       said two decisions of this Court and, we may state that the view
       taken in Shyam Deo case [(1971) 1 SCC 855 : 1971 SCC (Cri)
       353 : AIR 1971 SC 1606] appears to be sound except for a minor
       clarification which we consider necessary to mention. The plain         C
       language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the appellate Court
       does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it ‘must’
       call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record
       is received, the appellate Court may dispose of the appeal after
       hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language       D
       of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal
       for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code
       envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and
       scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the appellate Court
       to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the
       reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross- checking    E
       the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying
       itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court
       are consistent with the material on record.”
                                                      (Emphasis supplied)
                                                                               F
       29.In a case with similar circumstance, we notice that the Allahabad
High Court in Sita Ram & Others v. State15 has held that when the
entire record was lost or destroyed and the reconstruction of the record
was not possible, the Appellate Court shall order retrial provided the
time lag date of incident and the date of hearing of appeal is short. If the
same is long and/or the FIR, statement, of witnesses under Section 161         G
and other relevant papers are not available, the Appellate Court should
not order retrial.
13
   2022 SCC Online 880
14
   (1996) 4 SCC 720
15
   1981 Cr.LJ, 65
                                                                               H
526                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            30. In numerous judgments rendered by various High Courts, a
      similar view to the effect that a conviction cannot be upheld in the absence
      of the records of the Court below has been expressed. Taking note of
      Sita Ram (supra), the time elapsed between the occurrence of the
      offence and the appeal being finally decided, these courts have held
      that in the absence of essential documents such as the FIR or witness
B
      statements, a retrial too cannot be said to be serving the ends of justice.
      [Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P.16; Vir Pal v. State17; Hira Lal v.
      State of U.P.18 and Bhunda and Ors. V. State of U.P.19]
            31. In the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court
      records the statement of the CBI that the records have “got lost”. The
C     “reconstructed” record consists of the following:
             i.       FIR of RC 18(A)/95-LKO;
             ii.      Complaint dated 03.05.1995 of Sri J.P.N. Upadhyay, CIT,
                      Varanasi (2 pages);
D            iii.     Photocopy of S.F.-II dated 24.03.1995 (one page);
             iv.      Pretrap memorandum dated 3.5.95 (4 pages);
             v.       Recovery memo dated 3.5.1995 (5 pages);
             vi.      Search list dated 3.5.95 (5 pages);
E            vii.     One file containing charge-sheet (SF-II) of Sri JPN
                      Upadhyay and Notesheet. (Pages 1 to 6 & Notesheet
                      PP-2);
             viii.    Search list dated 4.5.95 (1 sheet);

F            ix.      Site plan dated 3.5.95 (1 sheet);
             x.       Misc. Papers containing Draft charge-sheet etc. (7 sheets);
             xi.      Sanction order dated 28.12.95.
             Sub-section, 2 of Section 385, requires that the parties are heard
      in light of the records received by the Court. The documents undoubtedly
G
      need to include the essential documents necessary to properly appreciate
      the appeal on its merits. Even the depositions of the witnesses, both
      16
         1986 SCC OnLine All 211
      17
         1999 SCC OnLine All 1348
      18
         1999 SCC OnLine All 1392
      19
H        2001 SCC OnLine All 864
         JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                 527
                   [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

prosecution and defence, have not been re-constructed and are not              A
available for the Court. This position of disposal of an appeal on merits
being only after perusal of record, has been held by a three-Judge
Bench in Bani Singh (supra).
       32. The Court below, in our considered view, by taking a mutually
contradictory view, proceeded to decide the appeal on merits sentencing        B
the accused, forgetting that the challenge was also for conviction. And
yet did not deal with the merits of the appeal, laying specific challenge to
the judgment of conviction. The whole approach is illegal and erroneous.
Firstly, it is observed that the record was missing, and then it casts the
onus to produce the same on the Appellant.
                                                                               C
       33. In light of the abovementioned discussion, the Accused, in
appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court
and, therefore, upholding a conviction by merely having noted that the
counsel for the accused not having the record at the time of filing the
appeal is “doubtful” and that “no one can believe” the appeal would
have been filed without perusing the record, as observed by the High           D
Court is not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on
the lower Court’s judgment to uphold the conviction but, based on the
record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the
arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon.
       34. In the facts at hand, the alleged offence in question was           E
committed on 21.3.1995, and the judgment of the Trial Court was delivered
on 7.12.1999. More than 28 years have passed since the commission of
the offence. As already indicated, the relevant Trial Court record has
not been able to be reconstructed, despite the efforts of the courts below.
Hence, in our considered view, as discussed above, ordering a retrial is       F
not in the interest of justice and will not serve any fruitful purpose. The
time elapsed must be taken into consideration by the Court, and we may
stress on that, only after taking due note of and taking steps to abide by
the warning issued by this Court in Abhai Raj Singh (supra), as was
correctly done in Sita Ram (supra).
                                                                               G
      Conclusions
       35. Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of
liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal
procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person
filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court. The
                                                                               H
528             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     same can only be done when the record is available with the Court of
      Appeal. That is the mandate of Section 385 of the CrPC. Therefore, in
      the considered view of this Court, it is not within prudence to lay down a
      straightjacket formula, we hold that non-compliance with the mandate
      of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and
      circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Article 21 of the
B
      Constitution of India, which we find it to be so in the instant case.
             36. The language of Section 385 shows that the Court sitting in
      appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the case
      from the concerned Court below. The same is an obligation, power coupled
      with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal
C     be decided.
             37.In the view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
      judgment and the conviction dated 07.12.1999 passed by Special Judge
      (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Lucknow, in Case No.7/1996 is
      set aside, subject thereof, is set aside.
D
             38. The impugned judgment had directed the accused to pay, by
      way of an enhanced fine, Rupees 25,000. Given the above, the fine, be
      it of whatever amount, if deposited, is liable to be returned to the Appellant.
             39. Before parting with the present leave petition another important
E     issue must be dealt with, i.e. the digitization of records. Technology has,
      in the present time become increasingly enmeshed with the systems of
      dispute resolution and adjudication with the trends pointing leading to all
      the more interplay, both supplementary and complimentary between
      technology and law.

F            40. On 24.9.2021, the learned E-committee of the Supreme Court
      of India issued an SOP for digital preservation. Step by step
      implementation of the digitization process involves eighteen steps therein.
      Primarily, it requires all High Courts to establish Judicial Digital
      Repositories (JDR) as well as the standardized system therefor; A
      digitisation cell at each of the High Courts is to be established to monitor
G     the progress on day to day basis; It is the work of the cell to manage
      contracts with vendors for specialized services; an online data tracking
      system to keep track of the data transferred to the High Courts and to
      facilitate the receipts for each set of transferred records to the District
      Courts as well; District Courts to have back-ups of all data transferred
H
          JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA                                    529
                    [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

to the High Court on a monthly basis while maintaining an independent              A
record thereof.
        41. It cannot be doubted that had there been properly preserved
records of the Trial Court, the issue in the present appeal as to whether
the High Court could uphold a conviction having not perused the complete
Trial Court record, would not have arisen. Judicial notice can be taken of         B
the fact that, in accordance with the SOP issued, private entities providing
specialized service have been contracted, and therefore considering the
importance and essentiality of such record, a robust system of
responsibility and accountability must be developed and fostered in order
to ensure the proper protection and regular updation of all records
facilitating the smooth functioning of the judicial process.                       C

       42. Therefore, this Court finds it fit to issue the following directions:
       1. The Registrar General of the High Courts shall ensure that in
       all cases of criminal trial, as well as civil suits, the digitization of
       records must be duly undertaken with promptitude at all District            D
       Courts, preferably within the time prescribed for filing an appeal
       within the laws of procedure.
       2. The concerned District Judge, once the system of digitization
       along with the system of authentication of the digitized records is
       in place in their judgeship, to ensure that the records so digitized        E
       are verified as expeditiously as possible.
       3. A continually updated record of Register of Records digitized
       shall be maintained with periodic reports being sent to the
       concerned High Courts for suitable directions.
       4. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.           F

Nidhi Jain                                                       Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)


                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H