JITENDRA KUMAR RODE (Appellant ) Vs. UNION OF INDIA (Respondent)

(CRIMINAL APPEAL arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 2063 OF 2023)

(2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by SANJAY KAROL, J.)

Facts: Appeal   arises   out   of   the   final   judgment   in Criminal Appeal passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow by which   the   Appellant’s   conviction   by   the   Special   Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Lucknow was upheld.

Issue: 1. 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?

2. Whether given the language employed under Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present situation constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

It is submitted that law is settled on the issue, and in the absence of 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 Bihar and State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another, He further placed reliance on High Court decisions, namely Ramesh Kaushik v. State of Delhi of the Delhi High Court; Raghuvir Sahai and Others v. State of U.P., Avdesh Rai and Others v. State of U.P. and Tej Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. of the Allahabad High Court.

Held: The court, while allowing the present appeal, set aside the impugned judgment   and   the   conviction passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Lucknow. With regards to the first issue, the court observed that, “In the considered view of this Court, it is not within prudence to lay down a straightjacket formula, we hold that non­compliance 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 Constitution of India, which we find it to be so in the instant case.” With regards to the second issue, it was observed that “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 be decided.” Apart from the above decision, the court issued the following directions, emphasizing the need of digitisation of records:

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 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 are verified as expeditiously as possible.

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.