REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……………OF 2023
Arising out of 
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2063 OF 2023
JITENDRA KUMAR RODE        …Appellant 
VERSUS  
UNION OF INDIA      …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J. 
1.  Leave granted.
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 1

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? 
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   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. 
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:
“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 2

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   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
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 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. 
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 3

received from the Court concerned 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   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 admission of non­availability of
material   on   record,   for   which   the   Appellant   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
Investigation 1
,   the   sentence   was   reduced   to   time   already
1   (2014) 3 SCC 485, Paragraphs 8 – 13. 4

undergone   and   the   fine   enhanced   to   Rupees   Twenty­Five
Thousand.
The Present Appeal
10. Being   aggrieved   by   the   Order   of   conviction   being   upheld,   the
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 
                 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.
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 Bihar 2
,  State  of  U.P.  v.
Abhai Raj Singh and Another 3
. He further placed reliance on
High   Court   decisions,   namely   Ramesh   Kaushik   v.   State   of
Delhi 4
  of the   Delhi High Court;  Raghuvir Sahai and Others v.
2   (1971) 1 SCC 855
3   (2004) 4 SCC 6
4   2022 SCC Online Del 4185 5

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 
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 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. 
13. We   must   consider   whether   the   non­availability   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.
5   Criminal Appeal No.786 of 1979
6   Criminal Appeal No.346 of 1984
7   2015 SCC Online All 6581 6

14. It is  well  settled that  following   “procedure  established  by  law”
in a criminal prosecution is a sacrosanct requirement.
15. In   M.H.   Hoskot   v.   State   of   Maharashtra 8
  (three­Judge
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 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
(two­Judge 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, it
is   a   natural   corollary   that   the   High   Court,   sitting   in   appeal,
must benefit from those documents. In the considered view of
8   (1978) 3 SCC 544
9  ( 2010) 6 SCC 1 7

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 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.
20. 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   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:
“ 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   Article   21   and   as
implied   in   his   statutory   right   to   appeal,   the   necessary
concomitant   of   right   to   counsel   to   prepare   and   argue   his
appeal.” 8

21. The   instant   case   is   governed   by   Section   385   of   the   Code   of
Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   which   is   extracted   for   ease   of
reference:
“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—
(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; 
(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 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.  
(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) 
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 9

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 us. 
23. One   of   the   earlier   cases   on   this   issue   is   the   judgment   of   the
Calcutta   High   Court   in   Queen   Empress   v.   Khimat   Singh 10
,
wherein   the   District   Judge   failed   to   trace   or   discover   the   lost
records.  The  Court   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   de­novo.   The   judgment   in   Khimat   Singh
(supra)   has   been   followed   by   this   Court   in   Abhai   Raj   Singh
(supra).
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   Raut 11
,  stated
that   where   a   conviction   is   appealed   against,   once   summary
10   1889 A.W.N. 55
11   AIR 1935 PC 89 1
0

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: 
“ 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 for the record
of   the   case,   if   it   is   not   already   before   the   Court.   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
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. This Court in  Biswanath Ghosh v. State of W.B. 12
 (two­Judge
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. 
12   (1987) 2 SCC 55 1
1

27. This   Court   in   Abhai   Raj   Singh   (supra)   (two­Judge   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:
“ 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 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   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   response   from   the
Sessions   Judge.   The   order   for   reconstruction   was   on
1­11­1993   and   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.   1970   of   1979   dated   25­2­1994.
The   order   was   followed   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1962
of 1979 disposed of on 16­8­1995.  It is not clear as to
why   the   High   Court   did   not   require   the   Sessions
Court to furnish the information about reconstruction
of   records;   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   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 1
2

and   detractors   of   justice   by   allowing   undeserved
premium   to   violators   of   law   by   acting   hand   in   glove
with   those   anti­social   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
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   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 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   case  and
situation   only,   the   direction   given   in   the   impugned
judgment   shall   operate   and   the   matter   shall   stand
closed.  The appeals are accordingly disposed of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Recently,   this   Court   in   Dhananjay   Rai   alias   Guddu   Rai   v.
State   of   Bihar 13
  (two­Judges)   took   note   of   a   Judgment
rendered in  Bani Singh v. State of U.P. 14
, as under   :
“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
13   2022 SCC Online 880
14   (1996) 4 SCC 720 1
3

1971   SC   1606]   appears   to   be   sound   except   for   a
minor   clarification   which   we   consider   necessary   to
mention. The plain 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   of   Sections   385­386
does   not   contemplate   dismissal   of   the   appeal   for
non­prosecution   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   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)
29. In   a   case   with   similar   circumstance,   we   notice   that   the
Allahabad   High   Court   in   Sita   Ram   &   Others   v.   State 15
  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
and   other   relevant   papers   are   not   available,   the   Appellate
Court should not order retrial.
15  1981  Cr.LJ, 65 1
4

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 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. State 17
; 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 “reconstructed” record consists of the following:  
i. FIR of RC 18(A)/95­LKO; 
ii. Complaint   dated   03.05.1995   of   Sri   J.P.N.   Upadhyay,
CIT, Varanasi (2 pages);
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);
vii. One   file   containing   charge­sheet   (SF­II)   of   Sri   JPN
Upadhyay   and   Notesheet.   (Pages   1   to   6   &   Notesheet
PP­2);
viii. Search list dated 4.5.95 (1 sheet);
ix. Site plan dated 3.5.95 (1 sheet);
16   1986 SCC OnLine All 211
17   1999 SCC OnLine All 1348
18   1999 SCC OnLine All 1392
19   2001 SCC OnLine All 864 1
5

x. Misc.   Papers   containing   Draft   charge­sheet   etc.   (7
sheets);
xi. Sanction order dated 28.12.95. 
Sub­section,  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, have not been re­constructed and are
not   available   for   the   Court.   This   position   of   disposal   of   an
appeal   on   merits   being   only   after   perusal   of   record,   has   been
held by a three­Judge 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 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.  
33. In   light   of   the   abovementioned   discussion,   the   Accused,   in
appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate 1
6

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 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
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,
i n   our   considered   view,   as   discussed  above,   ordering   a   retrial
is   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 1
7

Court   in   Abhai   Raj   Singh   (supra),   as   was   correctly   done   in
Sita Ram  (supra).
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 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   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. 
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 be decided.  1
8

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.  
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   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. 
40. On   24.9.2021,   the   learned   E­committee   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   the   progress   on 1
9

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 back­ups
of   all   data   transferred   to   the   High   Court   on   a   monthly   basis
while maintaining an independent 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   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. 
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   Courts,   preferably   within   the
time   prescribed   for   filing   an   appeal   within   the   laws   of
procedure. 2
0

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.
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.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
Dated : 24 th
 April, 2023;
Place  : New Delhi. 2
1