Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127491 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 303 of 1986 Appellant :- Radhey Shyam Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 22.01.1986 passed by Special Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No.9 of 1985, State vs. Radhey Shyam, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 7 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977, read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, sentencing further to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 19 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentencing further to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 23 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. 3. This appeal was presented before this Court on 27.01.1986. There is an office report dated 25.04.2017, which reads as under: - " ममनननय नयमयमलय कक आदकश ददनमनक 20.03.2017 कक अननपमलन मम पभमरन अधधकमरन, अदभलकखमगमर (फफजदमरन), जनपद नयमलयमलय, मनरजमपनर कम एक पत (पतमकम- ) इस आशय कम पमप हहआ हह दक मनकदमम सन० 09/1985 रमजय बनमम रमधक शयमम अनतगरत धमरम 3 /7 ई.सन. एकट थमनम ककतवमलन दकहमत धजलम मनरजमपनर दनररत ददनमनदकत 22-01-86 कक पतमवलन अदभलकखपमल कक आखयमननसमर ददनमनक 17-06-1999 कक ततकमलनन अदभलकखपमल शन यतनशनकर भटमचमयर ( धजनकक ममतयन हक चनकक हह) कक दमरम दनयममननसमर दवनष कर दन गयन हह. ररककरर लकअर ककटर सक दवनष दकयक जमनक कक कमरर पकपर बनक तहयमर नहह करमई जम सकक. उक अपनल मय पभमरन अधधकमरन, अदभलकखमगमर (फफजदमरन) मनरजमपनर कक आखयम आदकश हकतन पसतनत हह." 4. The order dated 05.05.2017 reads as under:- "List revised. None is present on behalf of appellant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. is present. As per letter dated 12.04.2017, of Incharge Officer, Record Room (Criminal), District Court Mirzapur, the lower Court record of this case has been weeded out. Session Judge, Mirzapur is directed to reconstruct the lower Court record within two months, and submit the same on or before the next date fixed. List this case alongwith reconstructed lower Court record after two months from today." 5. On 11.10.2017, following orders were passed:- "[Crl. Misc. Recall Application No. 319364 of 2017] Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of present recall application, the order dated 8.9.2017 passed by this Court is recalled. Application is allowed, accordingly. Order on Memo of appeal Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the record. CJM, Mirzapur is directed to submit compliance report in regard to the reconstitution of the criminal case No.9/1985 (State vs. Radhey Shyam vs. State of U.P.), under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, District Mirzapur decided on 22.1.1986 within four weeks. List thereafter alongwith the office report." 6. The office report dated 16.07.2024 reads as under:- "It is humbly submitted that a letter dated 23/11/2017 (at Flag 'XY') has been received from District Judge, Mirzapur, wherein it is stated that reconstruction of trial court record is not possible, because neither party has any record. The case is put up for orders." 7. A perusal of office report shows that the records have been weeded out and reconstruction of the trial court record is not possible, as neither party has record. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.474 of 1980, Mauji Lal and others vs. State of U.P., decided on 15.03.2022, had the occasion to consider the contingency when the records stand weeded out and they cannot be reconstructed. It was observed as under: - "31. Law framed by Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as the High Courts on the law point, i.e, where Lower Court Record is not traceable; reconstruction of same is not possible and even retrial is not possible is to the effect that in such case, the judgment of the Trial Court shall be quashed and appellant shall be acquitted for all charges. 32. Reasons for reaching to the aforesaid conclusion is that in the absence of original record, it is not possible to arrive at a decision that impugned judgment passed and sentence awarded against appellant is legally justified and in conformity with law. Where the reconstruction of record is not possible which has been lost or destroyed, it is not legally permissible for the Appellate Court to affirm the conviction of the appellant since perusal of the record of the case is one of the essential elements of hearing of the appeal. Further, appellant has a right to satisfy the Appellate Court that the material or evidence available on record did not justify his/her conviction and this right cannot be denied to the appellant." 9. Learned counsels have made a joint statement at Bar that barring the memo of appeal and the judgment and order of conviction, they do not possess any other record. 10. Bearing in mind the fact that the offences were committed on 01.06.1984, the order of conviction is dated 22.01.1986 and the appeal is pending since 1986, the records are weeded out and there is no possibility of reconstruction and also the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed and the conviction, this Court while respectfully following the judgment in Mauji Lal (supra), which in fact follows the law of the land on the said subject, has no option but to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.1986 passed by the trial court and acquit the appellant. 11. Resultantly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 12. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.1986 passed by Special Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No.9 of 1985, State vs. Radhey Shyam, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 7 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977, read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, sentencing further to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 19 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentencing further to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Clause 23 of the U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution Order 1977 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 stands quashed. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad