Krishna Kant Gaur vs State of U.P.

Virendra Saran, J.—Heard Sri Viresh Misra holding brief of Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned State counsel.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 931979 passed by Sri Chhotey Lal Jatav, IV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bareilly in Special Case No. 11 of 1978, convicting the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to one year''s R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo further R. I. for one month.

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a public servant employed in Jail Department and he accepted Rs. 20 from Nazir Ahmad as illegal gratification. The appeal was admitted, as far back as, in the year 1979. This Court summoned the record, but the Officerincharge Record Room Judges'' Court, Bareilly informed that due to fire the entire record of the case has been burnt. On 1151992 when the case was listed before Hon''ble Kundan Singh, J. it was directed that the parties may be called for reconstruction of the record and the learned Sessions Judge to submit his report within three months. The learned Sessions Judge did not give any reply and on 1311993 Hon''ble Kundan Singh, J. directed to issue a D. O. letter to District Judge, Bareilly to comply the order dated 1351992 of this Court and to submit his report within six weeks. Thereafter the case was listed on 1231993 before Hon''ble V. P. Goel, J, who called for explanation from District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly for not complying the order of this Court. Office report dated 1271993 shows that D. O. letter has been sent to Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 1931993, but no compliance report has been received as yet.

I am, however, of the view that the present case if of petty nature and it will be utter waste of public time and money to endeavour to get the record reconstructed. Even otherwise the efforts to reconstruct the record are nothing but a wild goose chase. Unless the parties have certified copies of the statements and other papers, the record cannot be reconstructed properly and no reliance can be placed on a uncertified copies of any statements produced by any party.

In absence of the record it is not possible to reappraise the evidence and the valuable right of the appellant to get the evidence reappraised in appeal has been lost.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bonds are discharged. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the appellant.