Introduction:

In K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow and a Connected Appeal [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419], the Allahabad High Court delivered an important ruling clarifying the procedure to be followed by subordinate courts while transmitting records in criminal appeals. The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that once a criminal trial has concluded and an appeal or revision is filed before the High Court, the trial court is required to transmit the original records of the case in accordance with Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII, Part III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, unless specifically directed otherwise. The Court made it clear that forwarding only photocopies or certified copies of the record is contrary to the statutory Rules.

The controversy arose while the High Court was hearing two connected criminal appeals challenging convictions in a corruption case. During the proceedings, the Court noticed that although the original trial court records had been requisitioned as far back as 2013, the trial court had transmitted only certified copies instead of the original record. This created practical difficulties because, under the High Court Rules, copies cannot be prepared from another copy, thereby preventing the office from supplying records to the advocates appearing for the parties.

The Court found that this practice had become increasingly common after the Supreme Court passed a clarificatory order dated 25 April 2018 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, wherein trial courts were directed to ordinarily retain original records so that pending proceedings before them would not be delayed. However, according to the High Court, several subordinate courts had misunderstood the scope of those directions and started forwarding only photocopies even in criminal cases where the trial had already concluded.

The case therefore presented an important procedural issue concerning the interaction between the Allahabad High Court Rules and the Supreme Court’s directions in Asian Resurfacing. The principal question before the Court was whether the directions permitting trial courts to retain original records extended even to criminal appeals arising after completion of the trial.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants, whose criminal appeals against conviction were pending before the High Court, sought adjudication on the basis of the complete trial record. Since the original records had been summoned by the High Court many years earlier, it was expected that the trial court would comply with the requisition in accordance with the Allahabad High Court Rules.

However, instead of forwarding the original judicial record, the trial court transmitted only certified copies. This prevented the High Court Registry from preparing copies for the advocates representing the parties because the Rules prohibit supplying copies prepared from another copy of a document.

Although the judgment primarily addresses the procedural issue rather than rival submissions on the merits of the criminal appeals, the Court examined the prevailing administrative practice adopted by several subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.

The understanding apparently prevailing among many trial courts was that the Supreme Court’s order in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI prohibited transmission of original records to the High Court in all circumstances. Proceeding on this assumption, trial courts routinely forwarded photocopies or certified copies instead of the original records even after the criminal proceedings had attained finality before them.

The issue therefore required the High Court to determine whether such an interpretation correctly reflected the intention behind the Supreme Court’s directions and whether it was consistent with the mandatory provisions contained in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that the practice adopted by several subordinate courts resulted from an incorrect understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court’s clarificatory order dated 25 April 2018 was issued in an entirely different context. The object behind those directions was to ensure that pending proceedings before subordinate courts were not unnecessarily stalled merely because original records had been summoned by superior courts.

Where trials or other proceedings continue before subordinate courts, retention of the original record becomes necessary because the court requires those records for effective conduct of proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted transmission of photocopies or scanned copies so that pending judicial work would not come to a standstill.

However, the Allahabad High Court emphasised that the Supreme Court never intended those directions to apply after the conclusion of criminal trials.

The Court observed that once a criminal trial culminates in conviction or acquittal, the trial court ordinarily has no further proceedings requiring continued possession of the original judicial record. Therefore, sending the original records to the High Court in such cases does not delay or obstruct any pending judicial process before the subordinate court.

Justice Vidyarthi categorically observed that the Supreme Court did not direct that trial courts should permanently retain original records even after final disposal of criminal cases.

The judgment further explained that the misunderstanding among several subordinate courts had resulted in a widespread departure from the mandatory provisions contained in the Allahabad High Court Rules.

The Court then examined Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII, Part III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which specifically governs criminal appeals and revisions.

The Rule clearly provides that after notices are issued in criminal appeals or revisions, the record shall be sent for unless otherwise directed.

According to the Court, the language of the Rule leaves little room for discretion. Unless the High Court specifically directs otherwise, the original judicial record must be transmitted to facilitate proper hearing of criminal appeals.

Justice Vidyarthi emphasised that statutory Rules governing judicial procedure are binding upon all subordinate courts.

The Court observed that these Rules are meant to be obeyed by everyone and, more particularly, by courts functioning within the judicial hierarchy.

The Court also highlighted the practical difficulties arising from non-compliance with the Rules.

Since the trial court had transmitted only certified copies, the High Court Registry was unable to provide copies of the record to the advocates because procedural Rules prohibit preparation of copies from another copy.

Such procedural complications unnecessarily hamper the effective conduct of appellate proceedings and delay adjudication of criminal appeals.

The Court also referred to the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench in Prem Chand v. Charat Kumar Bansal (2025), which dealt with similar issues in the context of civil proceedings.

In Prem Chand, the High Court had examined the effect of the Constitution Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177), which subsequently overruled the principal ruling in Asian Resurfacing relating to automatic vacation of stay orders.

The Court observed that although the Constitution Bench had overruled the principal ratio concerning automatic vacation of interim orders, it did not affect the validity of the Supreme Court’s separate clarificatory order dated 25 April 2018 regarding transmission of records.

However, Justice Vidyarthi clarified that even this surviving clarification must be understood within its proper factual context.

The purpose behind permitting photocopies was only to avoid interruption of pending proceedings before subordinate courts.

It was never intended to alter the statutory requirement applicable to appeals arising after conclusion of criminal trials.

The Court further distinguished criminal proceedings from civil proceedings.

In civil litigation, even after a decree is passed, the trial court frequently continues to exercise jurisdiction during execution proceedings.

Consequently, retention of original records may sometimes remain necessary for further proceedings.

In contrast, after a criminal court records either conviction or acquittal, the trial ordinarily comes to an end.

Except for ministerial functions, no substantive proceedings ordinarily remain pending before the trial court requiring continued custody of the original judicial record.

Therefore, transmission of the original records to the High Court does not obstruct any pending criminal proceeding.

This distinction, according to the Court, clearly demonstrates why the Supreme Court’s directions cannot be mechanically extended to concluded criminal trials.

Justice Vidyarthi therefore held that whenever criminal appeals or criminal revisions arise against orders of conviction or acquittal and notices are issued by the High Court, the original records of the trial court or appellate court must be transmitted in compliance with Rule 9, unless the High Court expressly orders otherwise.

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the Court directed the concerned trial court to immediately transmit the original records relating to the criminal appeals.

The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 17 August after receipt of the original judicial records.

Recognising that the misunderstanding had affected several subordinate courts across the State, the High Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh so that the correct legal position is uniformly followed in future.

The judgment reinforces the binding nature of procedural Rules governing criminal appeals while clarifying the limited scope of the Supreme Court’s directions in Asian Resurfacing. It ensures that appellate courts receive complete original records necessary for proper adjudication and removes the confusion that had led many subordinate courts to routinely transmit only photocopies even after criminal trials had concluded.