State of U.P v. Dina Nath and another) under Section

2. Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present and have been heard and records perused.

3. The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 07.01.2000 passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 1124 of 1994 (State of U.P. vs. Dina Nath and another) under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956, P.S. Chunar, District Mirzapur by which the accused revisionist and one Bhona Sao have been convicted and sentenced under Section 7(1)/16(A)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 to six months imprisonment and a find of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional rigorous imprisonment and further against the judgement and order dated 19.03.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2000 (Dina Nath and Bhola Sao vs. State) by which the said appeal was partly allowed and insofar as Bhola Sao is concerned, he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him but the appeal insofar as accused Dina Nath is concerned, the same was dismissed and the judgement and order of trial court was affirmed.

4. The trial court records of the matter were summoned by this Court. Subsequently, a report was received from the trial court concerned that records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record. This Court thus passed the following order on 20.02.2024. "1. List revised.

2. Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present.

3. The trial court records were summoned vide order dated 18.12.2023 of this Court. As per office report dated 19.2.2024, a report of the In-charge Record Room, Mirzapur has been received stating therein that trial court records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record room.

4. Perused the report dated 17.02.2024 of the In-charge, Record Room (Criminal), District Court, Mirzapur. The said report states of the trial court being weeded out on 21.06.2006. Further records of Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2000 (Deenanath Vs. State) decided on 19.03.2001 are missing. It is mentioned therein that the records are old and since process of scanning of records is going on in the District Court, the work is quite disturbed. This is totally unacceptable. The work of scanning and digitization is a totally different work which cannot in any manner effect and hamper regular judicial work.

5. The District Judge concerned is directed to personally look into the matter and ensure transmission of whatever records are available at his end. In so far as the weeding out of the trial court records is concerned, he shall also submit a report as to whether there is any possibility of reconstruction of the same and if not whether there is any possibility of retrial in the matter. The said report be sent to this Court within a month.

6. Let the matter be listed on 21.03.2024.

7. The Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the District Judge concerned within four days from today for its compliance."

5. Subsequently, on 21.03.2024, since no compliance report was received, this Court passed the following order :-

1. List revised.

2. Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State are present.

3. On 20.02.2024 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. List revised.

2. Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present.

3. The trial court records were summoned vide order dated 18.12.2023 of this Court. As per office report dated 19.2.2024, a report of the In-charge Record Room, Mirzapur has been received stating therein that trial court records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record room.

4. Perused the report dated 17.02.2024 of the In-charge, Record Room (Criminal), District Court, Mirzapur. The said report states of the trial court being weeded out on 21.06.2006. Further records of Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2000 (Deenanath Vs. State) decided on 19.03.2001 are missing. It is mentioned therein that the records are old and since process of scanning of records is going on in the District Court, the work is quite disturbed. This is totally unacceptable. The work of scanning and digitization is a totally different work which cannot in any manner effect and hamper regular judicial work.

5. The District Judge concerned is directed to personally look into the matter and ensure transmission of whatever records are available at his end. In so far as the weeding out of the trial court records is concerned, he shall also submit a report as to whether there is any possibility of reconstruction of the same and if not whether there is any possibility of retrial in the matter. The said report be sent to this Court within a month.

6. Let the matter be listed on 21.03.2024.

7. The Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the District Judge concerned within four days from today for its compliance."

4. As per the office report dated 20.03.2024, the report of the District Judge concerned regarding possibility of reconstruction of record is awaited. The records as received only pertain to the records of the appellate court and not of the trial court.

5. Let a reminder be sent to the District Judge concerned for compliance of the order dated 20.02.2024 forthwith.

6. Let the matter be listed on 15th April, 2024."

6. The office through its report dated 15.04.2024 has placed a report of the District Judge, Mirzapur. A perusal of which goes to show that the District Judge, Mirzapur vide his report dated 11.11.2024 has enclosed a report of the concerned officer nominated for reconstruction of the trial court records and has also reported that the records cannot be reconstructed due to unavailability of any records of the present matter. This Court has perused the said report and also the enclosed the report dated 30.08.2024 of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Mirzapur to the said effect.

7. Learned counsel for the State also submits that except for the memo of revision and the judgement and orders annexed with it he has no other document and as such cannot provide any such documents. The judgements and orders as enclosed with the memo of appeal go to show that the incident in the present matter is of 30.12.1984 and as such it is of about 41 years old.

8. Looking to the fact of the case and the fact that the trial court records are not available and there are no chances of its reconstruction, the present revision is allowed. The accused revisionist is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, his bail bounds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He need not surrender. The impugned judgements and orders are hereby set aside.

9. Office to communicate this order to the trial court concerned along with the available records. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present and have been heard and records perused.

3. The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 07.01.2000 passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 1124 of 1994 (State of U.P. vs. Dina Nath and another) under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956, P.S. Chunar, District Mirzapur by which the accused revisionist and one Bhona Sao have been convicted and sentenced under Section 7(1)/16(A)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 to six months imprisonment and a find of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional rigorous imprisonment and further against the judgement and order dated 19.03.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2000 (Dina Nath and Bhola Sao vs. State) by which the said appeal was partly allowed and insofar as Bhola Sao is concerned, he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him but the appeal insofar as accused Dina Nath is concerned, the same was dismissed and the judgement and order of trial court was affirmed.

4. The trial court records of the matter were summoned by this Court. Subsequently, a report was received from the trial court concerned that records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record. This Court thus passed the following order on 20.02.2024. "1. List revised.

2. Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present.

3. The trial court records were summoned vide order dated 18.12.2023 of this Court. As per office report dated 19.2.2024, a report of the In-charge Record Room, Mirzapur has been received stating therein that trial court records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record room.

4. Perused the report dated 17.02.2024 of the In-charge, Record Room (Criminal), District Court, Mirzapur. The said report states of the trial court being weeded out on 21.06.2006. Further records of Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2000 (Deenanath Vs. State) decided on 19.03.2001 are missing. It is mentioned therein that the records are old and since process of scanning of records is going on in the District Court, the work is quite disturbed. This is totally unacceptable. The work of scanning and digitization is a totally different work which cannot in any manner effect and hamper regular judicial work.

5. The District Judge concerned is directed to personally look into the matter and ensure transmission of whatever records are available at his end. In so far as the weeding out of the trial court records is concerned, he shall also submit a report as to whether there is any possibility of reconstruction of the same and if not whether there is any possibility of retrial in the matter. The said report be sent to this Court within a month.

6. Let the matter be listed on 21.03.2024.

7. The Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the District Judge concerned within four days from today for its compliance."

5. Subsequently, on 21.03.2024, since no compliance report was received, this Court passed the following order :-

1. List revised.

2. Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State are present.

3. On 20.02.2024 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. List revised.

2. Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present.

3. The trial court records were summoned vide order dated 18.12.2023 of this Court. As per office report dated 19.2.2024, a report of the In-charge Record Room, Mirzapur has been received stating therein that trial court records have been weeded out and the records of the appeal are missing in the record room.

4. Perused the report dated 17.02.2024 of the In-charge, Record Room (Criminal), District Court, Mirzapur. The said report states of the trial court being weeded out on 21.06.2006. Further records of Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2000 (Deenanath Vs. State) decided on 19.03.2001 are missing. It is mentioned therein that the records are old and since process of scanning of records is going on in the District Court, the work is quite disturbed. This is totally unacceptable. The work of scanning and digitization is a totally different work which cannot in any manner effect and hamper regular judicial work.

5. The District Judge concerned is directed to personally look into the matter and ensure transmission of whatever records are available at his end. In so far as the weeding out of the trial court records is concerned, he shall also submit a report as to whether there is any possibility of reconstruction of the same and if not whether there is any possibility of retrial in the matter. The said report be sent to this Court within a month.

6. Let the matter be listed on 21.03.2024.

7. The Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the District Judge concerned within four days from today for its compliance."

4. As per the office report dated 20.03.2024, the report of the District Judge concerned regarding possibility of reconstruction of record is awaited. The records as received only pertain to the records of the appellate court and not of the trial court.

5. Let a reminder be sent to the District Judge concerned for compliance of the order dated 20.02.2024 forthwith.

6. Let the matter be listed on 15th April, 2024."

6. The office through its report dated 15.04.2024 has placed a report of the District Judge, Mirzapur. A perusal of which goes to show that the District Judge, Mirzapur vide his report dated 11.11.2024 has enclosed a report of the concerned officer nominated for reconstruction of the trial court records and has also reported that the records cannot be reconstructed due to unavailability of any records of the present matter. This Court has perused the said report and also the enclosed the report dated 30.08.2024 of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Mirzapur to the said effect.

7. Learned counsel for the State also submits that except for the memo of revision and the judgement and orders annexed with it he has no other document and as such cannot provide any such documents. The judgements and orders as enclosed with the memo of appeal go to show that the incident in the present matter is of 30.12.1984 and as such it is of about 41 years old.

8. Looking to the fact of the case and the fact that the trial court records are not available and there are no chances of its reconstruction, the present revision is allowed. The accused revisionist is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, his bail bounds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He need not surrender. The impugned judgements and orders are hereby set aside.

9. Office to communicate this order to the trial court concerned along with the available records. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad