K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow and Connected Appeal, 2026

The Allahabad High Court was hearing two connected criminal appeals challenging convictions in a corruption case.

An order summoning the trial court record had been passed by the High Court as far back as 2013.

Instead of forwarding the original trial court record, the concerned trial court transmitted only a certified copy of the record.

Owing to the absence of the original record, the High Court Registry was unable to provide copies of the trial court record to the parties because the Rules prohibit supplying copies of copies.

The Court noticed that several trial courts had adopted the practice of sending only photocopies or certified copies after the Supreme Court's clarification in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI dated 25 April 2018.

The High Court examined whether the Supreme Court's directions applied equally to criminal appeals arising from trials that had already concluded.

The Allahabad High Court held that Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII, Part III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 mandates transmission of the original trial court record in criminal appeals and revisions unless the High Court specifically orders otherwise.

The Court observed that the Trial Court acted contrary to the Rules by forwarding only certified copies despite the High Court's direction to summon the record.

The Court clarified that the Supreme Court's order dated 25 April 2018 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI was intended only to prevent pending proceedings before subordinate courts from being stalled because of transmission of original records.

The Court held that those directions apply only where the trial or other proceedings are still pending before the subordinate court.

The Court observed that several trial courts had misunderstood the Supreme Court's clarification by assuming that original records should never be transmitted to the High Court, even after conclusion of the trial.

Referring to Prem Chand v. Charat Kumar Bansal (2025), the Court reiterated that the Supreme Court's clarification remains valid only for ensuring that pending proceedings are not obstructed.

The Court distinguished criminal appeals from civil proceedings by observing that after conclusion of a criminal trial resulting in conviction or acquittal, ordinarily nothing remains pending before the trial court requiring retention of the original record.

Conversely, in civil matters, the trial court may still require the original record for execution proceedings.

The Court held that transmission of original records in concluded criminal cases causes no prejudice or procedural inconvenience.

Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned trial court to transmit the original record without further delay.

The Court also directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated among all Judicial Officers across Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance with Rule 9.

The judgment provides an important clarification regarding the scope of the Supreme Court's directions in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, limiting their application to pending proceedings before subordinate courts.

The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, emphasizing that procedural rules framed by the High Court must be strictly followed by all subordinate courts.

By distinguishing between pending trials and concluded criminal proceedings, the Court resolved a practical procedural issue that had delayed hearing of criminal appeals.

The decision also highlights the functional distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, noting that unlike civil cases involving execution of decrees, concluded criminal trials ordinarily require no further proceedings before the trial court.

The ruling promotes efficient appellate adjudication by ensuring availability of the original judicial record, thereby avoiding administrative complications associated with certified copies.

Overall, the judgment strengthens procedural discipline and clarifies the correct interpretation of both the High Court Rules and the Supreme Court's earlier clarification.