BASDEO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the material available on record.

(2.) THESE two criminal appeals emanate from the same judgment and order dated 30.7.1982 passed in Session Trial No. 496 of 1981-State Vs. Laukush and others, by IXth Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellants Basdeo, Chhedi Lal, Beni, Shiv Ram, Ramesh, Shyam Lal (appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1877 of 1982) and two other appellants Laukush and Chhote Lal, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1878 of 1982, were convicted under Sections 302/149, 147, 307/149, 323/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment, one year R.I., five years R.I. and six months R.I. respectively. Thus, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.1982 whereby their conviction and sentence as stated above, was recorded.

(3.) A reminder was issued to the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by this Court on 24.9.2007 directing the case to be listed on 29.10.2007. The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide his report dated 12.2.2008 apprised this Court that efforts for reconstruction of the record were entrusted to Sri R.P. Pandey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar. Sri Pandey could not complete the work of reconstruction of the record. The report of the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 12.2.2008 was put up before this Court on 10.4.2012. When this Court was not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the report for not reconstructing the lower court record, the District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nangar was directed to take effective steps in reconstruction of the lower court record without fail within two months and the case was directed to be listed on 10.7.2012. It was further directed that in case lower court record is not reconstructed, the District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar shall appear in person to explain the reasons as to why the lower court record has not been reconstructed.