Disposed¶11

Charanjit Singh v. Tulshi Dass & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Apr 2026CRL.A./457/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lost or destroyed Trial Court Record; TCR weeded out on 10.06.2002; requisition unsuccessful despite efforts by Registry, trial court and parties; appeal adjudication without trial court record impermissible, no evidentiary substratum; reconstruction impossible; retrial not feasible due to lapse of time and loss of basic records; impugned acquittal under Sections 448 and 506 IPC permitted to operate; proceedings closed; appeal disposed of; State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 6 applied; Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements lost; complaint case; VRK Section PS Mukherjee Nagar.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: the Impugned Judgment (acquittal dated 22.07.1998) is permitted to operate and the proceedings stand closed, reconstruction and retrial both being impossible. ¶11

Charanjit Singh Vs Tulshi Dass & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of: the Impugned Judgment (acquittal dated 22.07.1998) is permitted to operate and the proceedings stand closed, reconstruction and retrial both being impossible.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal can be proceeded with and adjudicated in the absence of the Trial Court Record, particularly where reconstruction of the record is not possible despite repeated and bona fide efforts by all concerned.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The original Trial Court Record is untraceable and has been irretrievably lost; despite the passage of time and multiple opportunities afforded, no reconstruction of the record has been possible, and core evidentiary material (witness depositions, proved/exhibited documents and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements) is unavailable.

¶6

Key takeaways

In the absence of the core evidentiary material, this Court is unable to examine and adjudicate on the correctness of the findings returned by the Trial Court, appreciate the evidence that was led, or scrutinise the reasoning underlying the Impugned Judgment.ratio¶8
Adjudication of an appeal necessarily and essentially requires a complete and effective scrutiny of the Trial Court Record; any determination in its absence would amount to a decision rendered without any evidentiary substratum, which is impermissible under the law.ratio¶9
Considering that the record stands destroyed and bearing in mind the substantial lapse of time since the Impugned Judgment, a direction for retrial would not be a feasible or meaningful exercise, as the foundational material required for such retrial is itself unavailable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A. 457/2002, Delhi High Court, Vimal Kumar Yadav J., decision dated 17.04.2026) against the Metropolitan Magistrate's judgment dated 22.07.1998 acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 448 and 506 IPC could not be adjudicated on merits: the entire Trial Court Record, including witness depositions, proved documents and the respondents' Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, had been weeded out on 10.06.2002 and was irretrievably lost, notwithstanding repeated requisition attempts by the Registry (letters/orders dated 24.06.2002, 07.08.2024), the parties themselves (noted in the order dated 24.03.2025) and corroborating office notings. Holding that appellate adjudication requires complete scrutiny of the Trial Court Record and that a decision without it would lack evidentiary substratum, and that retrial would be meaningless given the destroyed record and lapse of time, the Court applied State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 6, and permitted the Impugned Judgment to operate, closing the proceedings and disposing of the appeal.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.A. 457/2002

¶4

CHARANJIT SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Deepshikha and Ms. A. Sahilya Veena, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

TULSHI DASS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Nitesh Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar.

¶7

Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms. Mansi Rao, Advs. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV O R D E R

¶10

% 17.04.2026 1. Hybrid Mode.

¶11

The appeal in hand challenges the judgment dated 22.07.1998 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that despite repeated and continuous efforts, the Trial Court Record (TCR) has not been received and remains unavailable for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal. 4. It is borne out from the record that the Registry, vide office letter dated 24.06.2002 had first attempted to requisition the Trial Court Record, however, it was communicated by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Officer In-Charge, Record room (Crl) vide letter dated 26.07.2002 as per the official record maintained in the Record Room, the case file titled

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:43:04

¶15

Charanjit Singh vs. Tulsi had already been weeded out on 10.06.2002.

¶16

Further, this Court had vide order dated 07.08.2024, once again attempted to requisition the Trial Court Record from the concerned Trial Court, in response to which a report came stating that the record had been weeded out on 10.06.2002. The said fact was duly taken on record by this Court on 14.10.2025. It is also reflected from the order of this Court dated 24.03.2025 that both the parties had independently undertaken efforts to trace and acquire the Trial Court Record. However, no such record could be located. The VRK Section of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar also could not help as it is a complaint case. Additionally, office noting dated 24.06.2002, 18.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 further corroborate the position that the Trial Court Record stands destroyed and is no longer available.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, it stands established that the original Trial Court Record is untraceable and has been irretrievably lost. Despite the passage of time and multiple opportunities afforded, no reconstruction of the record has been possible. The material documents necessary for adjudication, including the pleadings, evidence led during trial, and the depositions of witnesses, are not available. The absence extends to vital components of the record such as the evidence of witnesses, all proved documents as well as the statements of the respondents recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

¶18

The question that arises for consideration is whether the present appeal can be proceeded with and adjudicated in the absence of the Trial Court Record, particularly in a situation where, despite repeated and bona fide efforts by all concerned, reconstruction of the said record is not possible. The legal position governing such a situation stands settled by the

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:43:04

¶21

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Anr. , (2004) 4 SCC 6, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

¶22

“10. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is to be noted at this juncture that one of the respondents i.e. Om Pal has died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The High Court shall direct reconstruction of the records within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available or possible sources with the assistance of the prosecuting agency as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel. If it is possible to have the records reconstructed to enable the High Court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner envisaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals and dispose of the same, on their own merits and in accordance with law. If it finds that reconstruction is 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 is not possible to facilitate the High Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication by the Sessions Court is 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. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.”

¶23

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that despite repeated efforts undertaken by the Registry, the concerned trial court as well as both the parties, the Trial Court Record has not been/could not be reconstructed or requisitioned and continues to remain unavailable and untraceable. The deficiency is not confined to secondary or supporting documents, but extends to the absence of the core evidentiary material, including depositions of witnesses and proved exhibited documents and statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all of which constitute the very foundation of the adjudicatory process. In the absence of such

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:43:04

¶26

material, this Court is unable to examine and adjudicate on the correctness of the findings returned by the Trial Court, from appreciating the evidence that was led, and from scrutinising the reasoning forming the basis of the Impugned Judgment.

¶27

It is trite that adjudication of an appeal necessarily and essentially requires a complete and effective scrutiny of the Trial Court Record, and any determination in its absence would amount to a decision rendered without any evidentiary substratum, which is impermissible under the law. Moreover, considering that the record stands destroyed and bearing in mind the substantial lapse of time since the passing of the Impugned Judgment, this Court is of the considered view that a direction for retrial would not be a feasible or meaningful exercise, particularly when the foundational material required for such retrial is itself unavailable. 10. In these circumstances, when the reconstruction of the record too is not possible so as to enable this Court to hear and dispose of the appeal, and where the course of retrial and fresh adjudication is equally rendered impossible on account of the loss of vital basic records, the only course open, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Anr.” (supra) , is to permit the Impugned Judgment to operate and to close the proceedings.

¶28

Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of.

¶29

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J

¶30

APRIL 17, 2026/ps

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 14:43:04

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 22.07.1998 of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.¶2
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi · 22.07.1998
Prior proceeding
Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents jointly submitted that despite repeated and continuous efforts the Trial Court Record (TCR) had not been received and remained unavailable for adjudication of the appeal.¶3
Prior proceeding
Registry first attempted requisition of the TCR vide office letter dated 24.06.2002; the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Officer In-Charge, Record Room (Crl) communicated vide letter dated 26.07.2002 that, per the official Record Room record, the case file titled 'Charanjit Singh vs. Tulsi' had already been weeded out on 10.06.2002.¶4
Prior proceeding
Per the official record maintained in the Record Room, the case file 'Charanjit Singh vs. Tulsi' had already been weeded out on 10.06.2002.¶4
Prior proceeding
This Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 once again attempted to requisition the TCR; the response report stated the record had been weeded out on 10.06.2002, and this fact was taken on record by the Court on 14.10.2025.¶5
Prior proceeding
As reflected in this Court's order dated 24.03.2025, both parties had independently undertaken efforts to trace and acquire the TCR, but no record could be located; the VRK Section of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar also could not help as it is a complaint case.¶5
Prior proceeding
Office notings dated 24.06.2002, 18.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 corroborate that the TCR stands destroyed and is no longer available.¶5
Prior proceeding
It stood established that the original TCR is untraceable and irretrievably lost; despite passage of time and multiple opportunities, no reconstruction of the record was possible.¶6
Prior proceeding
The absence of the record extends to vital components: the evidence of witnesses, all proved documents, and the statements of the respondents recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.¶6

Charanjit Singh v. Tulshi Dass & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh v. Tulshi Dass & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Kumar Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Shamshed Ahmed Vs State

Surinder Kumar Behl Vs State through CBI

Salig Ram Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Nacotics Control Bureau Vs Virender Singh Yadav @ v.T.Singh

Badan Singh Vs State