Reserved on 8.12.2025 Delivered on 19.3.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1347 of 1985 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 & 2. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement passed by C.M.M. Kanpur in complaint case no. 3601 of 1977 ( State vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mill Co. Ltd. and others) . By the said impugned judgement, respondent Swadeshi Cotton Mill Company and its occupier accused K.P. Agrawal were held guilty u/s 14(1A) of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. However, respondents/accused- Sri Raja Ram Jaipuria, Managing Director and Sri S.P. Jaggi, Manager of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. were acquitted. Appellant has challenged the acquittal of respondents in this appeal. 3. At the very outset, Appeal of co-accused Sri Raja Ram Jaipuria (Criminal Appeal No. 1347 of 1985) has already been abated. 4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this appeal was filed in the year 1982 and leave to appeal was granted in May 1985. Record of trial Court was summoned by this Court in year 1982. As per the letter dated 10.10.2024, the District Judge of Kanpur Nagar informed that Trial Court records were neither available in the Record Room of the District Court nor in the record room of the Collectorate in Kanpur Nagar. CMM Kanpur vide letter dated 22-03-2021 informed that whereabouts of respondents/ accused are unknown as Swadeshi Cotton Mill is in possession of Government of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Mohiley Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., R.N.Bhalla, V.B.Singh Regional Provedent Fund Commissioner .....Appellant(s) Raja Ram Jaipuriya And Others .....Respondent(s) India since 1978. Current Manager and other staff of Mill are unaware of his whereabouts. 5. Considering the foregoing circumstances, it was felt that this appeal be decided in light of law decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Abhay Raj Singh, (2004) 4 SCC 6, wherein the Supreme Court stated that "if the High Court finds that reconstruction was not practicable but by ordering retrial interest of justice could be better served ? adopt that course and direct retrial ? and from that stage law shall take its normal course. If only reconstruction was not possible to facilitate High Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication by Sessions Court was also rendered impossible due to loss of vitally important basic records ? in that case and situation only, the direction given in the impugned judgment shall operate and the matter shall stand closed". 6. Hence, the impugned judgment of trial court acquitting the respondents is confirmed. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Mukesh CRLA No. 1347 of 1985 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad