IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 569 OF 2001 (Old No. 903 of 1987) Ramesh Chandra Kashyap S/o Sri Badri Prasad R/o katra Malyan, Thana Kashipur, Distt. Nainital …Appellant Versus 1. The State 2. Lakshmi Prasad S/o Sipahi Lal 3. Anil S/o Lakshmi Prasad 4. Sunil S/o Lakshmi Prasad All R/o Mohalla Ali Khan, Thana Kashipur, Distt. Nainital ….Opposite Parties Dated: May 08, 2007 Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred, under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 22.11.1986 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, the then District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 1453 of 1985, Ramesh Chandra Vs. Lacchi Prasad & others, by which all the accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. 2. On 10.11.2006, this Court directed to summon the lower court record of the case. In compliance of the said order dated 10.11.2006, the In-charge Officer, District Magistrate, Nainital vide his letter dated 22.11.2006 has informed that the record of the case has been weeded out. In a judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Aziz Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in ACC 1992 (29) 223, it was held as under:- “Where record has been lost or destroyed and it is not possible to reconstruct the record, it will not be just or proper to direct the retrial of the case if a long gap has elapsed since the commission of the offence.” 4. Learend counsel for the appellant Sri Vipul Sharma and learned AGA for the State also submitted that the judgment in the present case was passed in the year 1986 and now after the expiry of period of about 21 years, the retrial or reconstruction of the record is not possible. 5. Even otherwise, the appellant has not filed the copy of the Judgment and order dated 22.11.1986 passed by A.C.J.M., Kashipur and there is no copy of the judgment available in the appeal. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) Rajeev Dang