Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Due to Missing Trial Records: Jitendra Kumar Rode vs. Union of India (24 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 347
Judges: Krishna Murari, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the trial court records are missing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in upholding a conviction and enhancing the fine when the original trial records were not available. This judgment underscores the importance of due process and the right to a fair appeal. The bench comprised of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The appellant, Jitendra Kumar Rode, was convicted by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Lucknow on 04 December 1999, under Sections 7, 13(1), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The trial court found him guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rupees Five Hundred from a Chief Ticket Inspector, Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Upadhyay, on 03 May 1995. The court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

Rode appealed the conviction to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow. During the proceedings, the High Court noted that the original trial records were missing and that the reconstructed documents were not in accordance with the rules. Despite this, the High Court upheld the conviction on 23 November 2022, reducing the sentence to time already served but enhanced the fine to Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Lucknow, convicted the Appellant on 04 December 1999. The Appellant then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow, which admitted the appeal on 07 December 1999. The High Court, despite repeated summons, could not obtain the trial court records. The High Court directed the District Judge to explain the missing records and take steps to reconstruct them. However, the reconstructed records were deemed insufficient and not in accordance with the rules. Despite the lack of proper records, the High Court upheld the conviction on 23 November 2022, reduced the sentence to time served, but enhanced the fine to Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which outlines the procedure for hearing appeals that are not dismissed summarily. Section 385(2) of the CrPC states:

“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.”

This section mandates that an appellate court must call for the records of the lower court before hearing an appeal, unless the appeal is solely about the legality or extent of the sentence. This provision is crucial for ensuring a fair appeal process. The Supreme Court also considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing that this right includes fair legal procedures.

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.
• Reliance was placed 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.
• It was 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.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, Union of India, did not provide specific arguments in the judgment. However, implicitly, the respondent contended that the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction based on the available documents and the trial court’s judgment.

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544]*: The Supreme Court used this case to highlight the importance of a first appeal to the High Court as a fundamental right under Article 21.

✓ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 17]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that due process includes fairness in trial, including access to all relevant documents.

✓ Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh [1889 A.W.N. 55]*: The Supreme Court followed this case to emphasize that the loss of records deprives the appellant of their right to a hearing, necessitating a retrial.

✓ King – Emperor v. Dahu Raut [AIR 1935 PC 89]*: The Supreme Court reiterated that the provision to send for the record is mandatory.

✓ Shyam Deo Pandey and Others v. State of Bihar [(1971) 1 SCC 855]*: The Supreme Court used this case to reinforce that the appellate court has an obligation to call for the records of the lower court.

✓ Biswanath Ghosh v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 551]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to highlight that upholding a conviction without records is a miscarriage of justice.

✓ State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Another [(2004) 4 SCC 6]*: The Supreme Court followed this case to emphasize the importance of record reconstruction and the need to remit the matter back to the High Court.

✓ Dhananjay Rai alias Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar [2022 SCC Online 880]*: The Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court must dispose of the appeal on merits after perusing the record.

✓ Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720]*: The Supreme Court held that the appellate court must dispose of the appeal on merits after perusal of the record.

✓ Sita Ram & Others v. State [1981 Cr.LJ, 651]*: The Supreme Court took note of this case to highlight that when records are lost, retrial should be ordered if the time lag is short, otherwise, retrial should not be ordered.

✓ 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]*: The Supreme Court noted that these cases highlight that a conviction cannot be upheld without the records of the court below.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fair legal procedure and the fundamental right to a fair appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the absence of trial court records deprived the appellant of a meaningful appeal, which is a violation of due process. The Court also considered the practical implications of ordering a retrial after a long period. The court was also influenced by the fact that the appellant was not responsible for the loss of records.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal framework, particularly Section 385 of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the missing records and the long delay since the offense was committed, but the legal principles were the primary driver of the decision.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of upholding the conviction based on available documents, but rejected them. The Court emphasized that the appellate court must have the complete trial records to make a fair assessment of the case. The Court also considered the possibility of ordering a retrial but rejected this option due to the long delay since the offense was committed.

The Court’s decision was clear: upholding a conviction without the trial records is a violation of due process and the right to a fair appeal. The Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the appellate court must have the full record to properly assess the case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The appellate court must have the trial court records to properly assess the case.
• Upholding a conviction without the records violates the principles of fair legal procedure.
• The right to a fair appeal is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Ordering a retrial after a long delay is not in the interest of justice.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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…”

“…personal liberty cannot be cut out or cut down without fair legal procedure.”

“…it is obligatory for the appellate Court to send for the record of the case, if it is not already before the Court.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court cannot uphold a conviction without the complete trial court records.
• The absence of trial records violates the principles of fair legal procedure and the right to a fair appeal.
• The right to a fair appeal is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Retrials should not be ordered after a significant delay, especially if the records are missing and the appellant is not responsible for their loss.
• Digitization of court records is essential to prevent such issues in the future.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases. It reinforces the importance of maintaining proper court records and ensures that appellate courts cannot uphold convictions without a thorough review of the trial proceedings. The judgment also highlights the need for digitization of court records to prevent similar issues in the future.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Registrar General of the High Courts shall ensure that in all cases of criminal trials, 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court cannot uphold a conviction without the complete trial court records, as it violates the principles of fair legal procedure and the right to a fair appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that appellate courts must have the trial court records to conduct a proper review. It also clarifies that a retrial should not be ordered after a long delay when records are missing and the appellant is not responsible for their loss. This case also highlights the importance of digitization of court records to prevent similar issues in the future.

Conclusion

In Jitendra Kumar Rode vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing that an appellate court cannot uphold a conviction without the complete trial court records. The Court held that doing so violates the principles of fair legal procedure and the right to a fair appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also directed the digitization of court records to prevent similar issues in the future. This judgment underscores the importance of due process and the need for appellate courts to have all relevant records before making a decision.