State Of Uttarakhand vs Anil Kumar And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.1989 passed by Special / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Session Trial No. 462 of 1986 acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them.

This appeal is received by transfer from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 2015. Paper book could not be prepared for want of original record. On 09.08.2018, inter alia, the following order was passed by this Court for reconstruction of original record:

"A letter dated 21.03.2012, which has been received from the Incharge, Record Room (Criminal) District Court, Saharanpur, it has been mentioned that the record of Session Trial No. 462 of 1986 State Vs. Anil Kumar and others has been weeded out on 29.06.2000 and only copy of the judgment is on record.

We direct the State Counsel to re-construct the record of the case by contacting the Advocates, who appeared before the Session Trial Court.

The counsel for the accused / respondents shall also provide the copies of the documents which are available with him to the State Counsel and the State Counsel shall submit all the papers in the form of paper book in the Registry within a period of one month."

Learned State Counsel was directed to reconstruct the record. On 05.12.2018, the Court was informed by learned Deputy Advocate General that State is not in a position to reconstruct the record. On that date, the Court finding no other option directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to make efforts to reconstitute the file. Registrar (Judicial) reported on 31.07.2019 that despite having made all efforts, no record is found, therefore, record could not be re-constructed. Again on 28.08.2019, this Court required the Registrar (Judicial) to submit the record, on the basis of which, earlier report was submitted.

Registrar (Judicial) on 11.09.2019 submitted a detailed report. It reveals that original record was weeded out way back on 29.06.2000. The only available paper is the impugned judgment. The State Counsel has already expressed his inability to submit any record for reconstruction of file. In fact, Government Advocate had also informed that record cannot be reconstituted.

This is a Government Appeal. There is no document available on record except the impugned judgment.

Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that for want of original record, he is not able to argue the case. He further submits that respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 have died. Appeal against them has already been abated vide order dated 22.08.2019.

Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 also urges that for want of record, it may not be possible for him to argue the appeal.

In fact, for appreciating the arguments, that may be advanced by either of the parties, original record is required to be perused, which is not available. Record cannot be reconstructed, as is reported. This appeal cannot be heard on merits for want of record. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.