LexJITENDRA KUMAR RODE versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA (Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2023) APRIL 24, 2023 [KRISHNA MURARI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974: s. 385 – Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily – Conviction and sentence of the appellant-Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railway u/s. 7 of PC Act by the trial court – In appeal before the High Court though the record revealed that the entire record of the matter before trial court has been lost and is not traceable and the documents sent as reconstructed documents do not constitute the relevant trial court record, the High Court upheld the conviction despite going into the merits – Legality of – Held : Accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court – 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 – Language of s. 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 – It is an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be decided – Non-compliance with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Art. 21 – Relevant trial court record has not been reconstructed, despite the efforts of the courts below – Furthermore, 28 years have been passed since the commission of the offence – Ordering a retrial is not in the interest of justice and would not serve any fruitful purpose – Thus, the order of the trial court and the High Court set aside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Constitution of India : Art. 21 – Protection of rights under – Held: Personal liberty cut down in the absence of fair legal procedure is an affront to the sanctity of Art. 21 – Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal [2023] 4 S.C.R. 512 512 A B C D E F G H 513 to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court – Same can only be done when the record is available with the court of appeal. Judicial directions : Digitization of Records – Issuance of directions to the High Courts to ensure that in cases of criminal trial, and civil suits, the digitization of records to be duly undertaken with promptitude at all District Courts for smooth judicial process – Issuance of SOP for digital preservation – All High Courts to establish Judicial Digital Repositories as well as standardized system. Judicial notice: Digitization of records – In accordance with the SOP issued, private entities providing specialized service have been contracted, and a robust system of responsibility and accountability to be developed and fostered to ensure the proper protection and regular updation of all records facilitating the smooth functioning of the judicial process – Judicial notice taken of the said fact. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 If a right of production of documents at the trial stage exists, it is a natural corollary that the High Court, sitting in appeal, must benefit from those documents. In the considered view of this Court, this is a demand of the said sacrosanct requirement. [Para 18][520-F] 1.2 In the instant case, despite efforts, documents such as the witness statements, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. [Para 19][520-G] 1.3 Once a violation of a right under Article 21 is established, that is undoubtedly sufficient to set aside a conviction. Nonetheless, it is essential to appreciate what the law of procedure says in this regard. After all, it cannot be gainsaid that personal liberty cut down in the absence of fair legal procedure is an affront to the sanctity of Article 21. [Para 20][521-A-B] 1.4 A bare reading of the s. 385 CrPC makes it clear that when appeals are not dismissed summarily, the appellate court JITENDRA KUMAR RODE v. UNION OF INDIA A B C D E F G H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. shall call for the records of the Court below except in cases where the question for consideration is the legali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.