Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Digitization of records in all criminal trials and civil suits now mandatory, directs Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 April 2023, Supreme Court in a Judgement, JITENDRA KUMAR RODE Vs UNION OF INDIA , directed the Registrar General of all High Courts to ensure that the digitization of records is duly undertaken in all criminal trial cases and civil suits, with promptitude at all District Courts, preferably within the time prescribed for filing an appeal within the laws of procedure. The Court also directed the concerned District Judges to ensure that the digitized records are verified as expeditiously as possible and a continually updated record of the Register of Records digitized is maintained with periodic reports being sent to the concerned High Courts for suitable directions.

The Court observed that the language of Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates the Court sitting in appeal to call for the records of the case from the concerned Court below, peruse them, and then decide the appeal. The Court held that failure to comply with this mandate would result in a violation of Article 21.

In the present case, the Appellate Court had upheld the conviction of the accused even though the relevant Trial Court record could not be reconstructed and the essential documents necessary to appreciate the appeal on its merits were not available. The Appellate Court had held that the counsel for the accused, who filed the appeal, must have perused the record at the time of filing the appeal. However, the Supreme Court held that the job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on the lower Court's judgment to uphold the conviction but to come to a conclusion based on the record available before it.

The Court further held that, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, non-compliance with the mandate of Section 385 would result in a violation of Article 21. However, the Court also observed that ordering a retrial in cases where the time elapsed since the commission of the offence is significant and the essential documents such as the FIR or witness statements are not available, would not be in the interest of justice and would not serve any fruitful purpose

The Court also directed the Registrar General of all High Courts to ensure that the digitization of records is duly undertaken in all criminal trial cases and civil suits, with promptitude at all District Courts, preferably within the time prescribed for filing an appeal within the laws of procedure. The Court also directed the concerned District Judges to ensure that the digitized records are verified as expeditiously as possible and a continually updated record of the Register of Records digitized is maintained with periodic reports being sent to the concerned High Courts for suitable directions.

JITENDRA KUMAR RODE Vs UNION OF INDIA

Latest Legal News