Conviction Cannot Be Upheld In The Absence Of The Records Of The Trial Court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the conviction of a person under Prevention of Corruption Act, on the ground that High Court shall not decide an appeal without calling for the records of the case from the Trial Court.

The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol noted:

“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.”

The Trial Court vide its judgment dated December 12, 1999 convicted the present appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The appellant approached the Allahabad High Court assailing the judgement and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Despite repeated summoning of records of the trial court, no reply was received from the trial court. The High Court directed the District Judge to furnish an explanation and take steps for reconstruction of the record.

The High Court noted that the record revealed 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.

However, the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated November 23, 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 non-availability of material on record for which the appellant was in no manner responsible.

The High Court vide the impugned judgment reduced the sentence of the appellant to time already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs. 25,000/-.

The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court. It was contended by the appellant that in the absence of trial court records, a conviction cannot be stated to be on firm grounds and is liable to be set aside.

The following issues were before the Supreme Court:

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 CrPC, the present situation constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

The Supreme Court noted:

“As we have noted earlier, in the present case, despite efforts, documents such as the witness statements, statements under Section 313 CrPC 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.”

The Court relied upon the numerous judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts wherein it was held that a conviction cannot be upheld in the absence of the records of the Court below.

The Top Court observed that the approach of the High Court to note that records were missing and casting the onus to produce the same on the appellant, was illegal and erroneous.

It was further observed by the Court that an accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court.

It further noted that 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 noted by the High Court was not correct.

The Court opined:

“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.”

The Court further held that protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal procedure which includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court and the same can only be done when the record is available with the Court of Appeal.

“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.”, thr Court said.

Thus, the Court set aside conviction of the appellant.

The Court further issued certain directions regarding digitalisation of District Court records.

Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India

Coram: Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment