Hon’ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Faizabad, in S.T. No. 1082 of 1996 (State v. Harihar Pathak and others) whereby the Application No. 87-A of the petitioners was rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to present controversy, as transpires from the perusal of the impugned order and the copy of the application annexed with this petition, are that the petitioners were facing trial for the offence under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 1996. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During course of trial after recording the evidence of several witnesses, the record of the case was lost. Hence, the reconstruction of the file was ordered and learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, under the directions of the District Judge, got the file reconstructed and the reconstruction of the file was approved by the learned District Judge and thereafter the file was sent to the Court concerned for trial at the stage of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In that Court an application was moved on behalf of the accused-persons on the ground that the file was not reconstructed properly. The reconstructed documents and evidence of witnesses is against the provisions of Sections 275, 276 and 278 Cr.P.C. and Sections 65 and 67 of Evidence Act. The trial Court after considering the entire matter rejected the application, hence the instant petition.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no provisions for reconstruction of the record and no rules have been framed therefore. It is further submitted that unauthenticated statements of witnesses were taken on record and were wrongly reconstructed. As such the file cannot be treated to be reconstructed. It was further mentioned in the application that all the witnesses of facts are still alive, therefore, the intention of the applicants was to get their evidence recorded a fresh.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and has stated that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the file was reconstructed with the consent of the learned counsels for both the parties. The documents were admitted by the counsels to be correct and accordingly the reconstruction of the record was approved. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the violation of Sections of Cr.P.C. and Evidence Act which the petitioners are alleging do not come into play in the present matter.

5. Admittedly, in the Cr.P.C. there is no provision for reconstruction of the record nor any rules have been framed therefor. But the reconstruction of the record is done on the administrative side. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and another, 2004 (50) ACC 691 in para 11 has directed as under :

“The High Court shall direct reconstruction of the record within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available or possible sources with the assistance of the prosecuting agency as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel. If it is possible to have the records reconstructed to enable the High Court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner, engaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals and dispose of the same, on their own merits and in accordance with law. If it find that reconstruction is not practicable but by ordering retrial interest of justice could be later served-adopt that course and direct retrial-and from that stage shall take its normal course. If only reconstruction is not possible to facilitate the High Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication by the Sessions Court is also rendered possible due to loss of vitally important basic