JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The questions which arise for our consideration are; One, 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? And Two, 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?

3. The captioned appeal arises out of the final judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 1999 dated 23.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow by which the Appellant’s conviction by the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Lucknow in Case No. 7 of 1996 was upheld.

4. To facilitate effective adjudication of the present lis, it is essential to appreciate the judgments rendered by the learned courts below.

5. The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 04.12.1999, convicted the Appellant herein, under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter, PC Act for short). After analysing the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded as under:

“The prosecution has been successful in proving that accused J.K Rode being working at the post of a Public Servant as Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow made a demand of Rupees Five Hundred from Chief Ticket Inspector Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Upadhyay on 03.05.95 to dispose of the charge sheet issued against him and he was caught red handed receiving the bribe on 03.05.95 and he received Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred) from said J.P.N Upadhya being posted as a public servant misusing his post as public servant for his gain in corrupt and illegal manner. Thus, the offence under section 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 is proved against the accused and he is liable to be punished for these charges. Accused is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. Accused should be taken into custody immediately.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Having so recorded, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to rigorous imprisonment of one year and rupees five hundred by way of fine (in default thereof, further imprisonment of six months) under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment of two years and rupees five hundred by way of fine (in default thereof, further imprisonment of six months) under Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Proceedings before the High Court

7. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the High Court admitted the petitioner's appeal on 07.12.1999. A perusal of the Order dated 04.03.2016 reveals that despite repeated summoning of records of the trial, no reply was received from the Court concerned and as a result, the District Judge was asked to furnish an explanation and, in any event, take steps for reconstruction of the record.

7.1 The record further reveals 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.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2022, 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 herein was in no manner responsible. Significantly, despite arguments, the Court did not discuss the merits of conviction.

9. However, the conviction was upheld and taking note of the decision of this Court in V.K. Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014) 3 SCC 485, Paragraphs 8 – 13, the sentence was reduced to time already undergone and the fine enhanced to Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand.

The Present Appeal

10. Being aggrieved by the Order of conviction being upheld, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal