IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No. 189 of 2001 (Old No. 288 of 1998) State of U.P. … Appellant Versus Imran & Others … Respondents March 27, 2010 Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/appellant. Mr. TA Khan, Advocate for the respondents. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (EC Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 91/1994. State v. Imran & Ors., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section under Section 147/304B/149/498A/120B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In compliance of the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by this Court summoning the record of the trial court, Officer-In-charge, Record Room (Civil), District Judge’s Court, Dehradun vide the report dated 6.1.2006, has reported that the record of the case has been burnt to ashes in an accident of fire in Record Room (Civil), District Judge Court, Dehradun on 7.12.1999 and hence the record cannot be sent. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Since the record of the case has been burnt to ashes in an accident of fire and, therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate the evidence adduced during the trial of the case. Learned Additional GA for the State/appellant, also submitted that after passing of the judgment and order dated 12.9.1997 which is under challenge, a period of more than 12 years have elapsed. He further submitted that now the reconstruction of the record or retrial is also not possible. 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. The occurrence had taken place on 15.10.1976 i.e. 15 years back and the complete record has not been reconstructed; Applying the principle laid down in the above mentioned authorities, we are of the opinion that the appeal of Aziz Khan should be allowed and his conviction and sentence should be set aside and the government appeal against acquittal of accused- respondents is liable to be dismissed.” 5. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the State/ appellant stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (EC Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 91/1994. State v. Imran & Others, is hereby affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.3.2010 PRABODH