Supreme Court sets aside conviction due to missing trial records in corruption case: Jitendra Kumar Rode vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 419

Judges: Krishna Murari, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a conviction be upheld if the trial court records are missing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning corruption charges. This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining proper records in the judicial process and ensures that an accused has a fair opportunity to appeal. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Jitendra Kumar Rode against his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge, Lucknow, had initially convicted Rode on 4 December 1999, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. Rode appealed this decision to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow.

However, the High Court faced a significant hurdle: the trial court records were missing. Despite this, the High Court upheld the conviction on 23 November 2022, reducing the sentence to time already served but enhancing the fine. Rode then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7, 13(1), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court admitted the appeal on 7 December 1999. Despite repeated attempts to summon the trial records, they were not available. The High Court directed the District Judge to reconstruct the records. However, the reconstructed documents were not in accordance with the rules and were not endorsed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court, despite noting the non-availability of the material records, upheld the conviction and enhanced the fine, relying on the decision in V.K. Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the procedure for hearing appeals that are not dismissed summarily. It mandates that the Appellate Court shall send for the record of the case if it is not already available, except in cases where the appeal is only about the legality or extent of the sentence. The court quoted the provision verbatim:

  “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.”

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that any procedure that deprives a person of their liberty must be fair and reasonable.

The Court highlighted that the procedure established by law in a criminal prosecution is a sacrosanct requirement, and that the right to appeal is an essential part of this process.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the law is settled on the issue that a conviction cannot be upheld in the absence of trial court records.
• The appellant contended that the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction without the complete trial records violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The appellant relied on several judgments, including Shyam Deo Pandey and Others v. State of Bihar, State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another, and various High Court decisions, to support the argument that the appellate court must have the trial records to properly adjudicate an appeal.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent’s arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the respondent likely argued that the partially reconstructed record was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544] to emphasize the importance of a first appeal as a safeguard under Article 21.
• The Court cited Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 17] to highlight that due process includes fairness in the trial and the right to receive all documents.
• The Court followed Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh [1889 A.W.N. 55], which held that the loss of records necessitates a retrial.
• The Court agreed with King – Emperor v. Dahu Raut [AIR 1935 PC 89], which stated that the provision of sending for the record is “peremptory”.
• The Court reiterated Shyam Deo Pandey and Others v. State of Bihar [(1971) 1 SCC 855], which made it obligatory for the appellate court to send for the record of the case.
• The Court relied on Biswanath Ghosh v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 551], which held that allowing a conviction without records is a miscarriage of justice.
• The Court followed State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another [(2004) 4 SCC 6], which emphasized the need for reconstruction and retrial when records are lost.
• The Court took note of Dhananjay Rai alias Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar [2022 SCC Online 880] and Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720], which mandated that the appellate court must call for records and dispose of the appeal on merits.
• The Court considered Sita Ram & Others v. State [1981 Cr.LJ, 651], which held that when the record is lost, retrial should be ordered if the time lag is short.
• The Court referred to Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P. [1986 SCC OnLine All 211], Vir Pal v. State [1999 SCC OnLine All 1348], Hira Lal v. State of U.P. [1999 SCC OnLine All 1392], and Bhunda and Ors. V. State of U.P. [2001 SCC OnLine All 864] to support the view that a conviction cannot be upheld without the records.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the principles of fair trial and due process, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that a person’s liberty cannot be curtailed without following a fair legal procedure. The absence of essential trial records, such as witness statements and depositions, made it impossible for the High Court to properly assess the merits of the appeal. The Court also noted the significant time lapse since the commission of the offense, making a retrial impractical and not in the interest of justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the partially reconstructed record was sufficient, emphasizing that the appellate court must have access to all essential documents to properly review the case. The Court also considered the time elapsed since the offense and the difficulties in conducting a retrial after so many years, concluding that setting aside the conviction was the most appropriate course of action.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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 re-constructed and are not available for the Court.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Trial Records: The judgment underscores the critical importance of maintaining complete and accurate trial records.
• Right to Fair Appeal: An accused has a fundamental right to a fair appeal, which includes the right to have the appellate court review the complete trial record.
• Section 385 of CrPC: The appellate court is obligated to call for the records of the trial court before deciding an appeal on merits.
• Article 21 Protection: Any procedure that deprives a person of their liberty must be fair and reasonable.
• Retrial Limitations: Retrial may not be ordered in cases where there is a significant time lapse and essential records are missing.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued 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. 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.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be upheld by an appellate court if the complete trial court records are not available for review. This judgment reinforces the importance of following the procedure established by law, particularly Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and upholds the principles of fair trial and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that a retrial may not be ordered if a significant time has passed since the offense and the essential records are missing. This decision does not change the previous position of law, but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of Jitendra Kumar Rode. The Court held that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction and enhancing the fine without the complete trial court records. The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining proper records and ensuring a fair appeal process, highlighting that the right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed without a fair legal procedure.