Allahabad HC: Asian Resurfacing Directions on Scanned Records Do Not Apply to Concluded Criminal Trials
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi holds that original trial court records must still be sent to the High Court in criminal conviction and acquittal appeals, distinguishing Supreme Court directions on photocopies.
A criminal appeal filed by K.D. Trivedi challenging his conviction under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sat unheard before the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench because the trial court sent only a certified copy of its record instead of the original. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, sitting singly at Court No. 14, used the occasion to lay down a clear rule: the Supreme Court's directions in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 340 — which permit trial courts to retain original records and send only photocopies — were never meant to apply to concluded criminal trials where no further proceedings remain pending before the trial court. The Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow has been directed to send the original record without delay.
The Conviction and the Appeal
The Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow convicted K.D. Trivedi on 19 December 2012 in Case No. 12 of 1998. The conviction carried a maximum sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine and a default stipulation. Trivedi filed Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 2012 before the Allahabad High Court. A connected matter, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013 filed by Rajni Kant Bharadwaj and another against the State of U.P. through CBI, was tagged along.
The High Court admitted the appeal on 17 January 2013 and summoned the trial court's record. Instead of transmitting the original record, the trial court's office sent a certified copy. That error stalled the matter for years.
Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
Justice Vidyarthi anchored the analysis in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Chapter XVIII of Part III, which governs proceedings other than original trials, contains Rule 9. That rule provides that after notices are issued in an appeal or revision, the record shall be sent for unless otherwise ordered. The rule specifically covers appeals under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requiring the record of the case out of which the proceedings under appeal arose to also be sent, unless otherwise directed.
The practical consequence of the trial court's error was immediate: the Rules prohibit providing copies of a copy of a document. Without an authentic copy of the trial court record, counsel for both sides could not assist the court in deciding the appeal.
The Asian Resurfacing Directions and Their Limits
The directions that apparently prompted the trial court's conduct came from two Supreme Court orders in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI. The majority judgment delivered on 28 March 2018 — authored by Justice A.K. Goel for himself and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Rohinton Nariman concurring — arose from a challenge to an order framing charges. That judgment included a direction that interim stays in trials would lapse automatically after six months unless extended by a speaking order.
A subsequent order dated 25 April 2018 in the same proceedings directed that wherever original records had been summoned by appellate or revisional courts, photocopies or scanned copies should be retained and the originals returned to trial courts. Going forward, trial courts were permitted to send photocopies or scanned copies and retain originals, so that proceedings before the trial court would not be held up. Original records were to be called for only when a specific finding was recorded that a photocopy would not serve the purpose.
The automatic-lapse direction was subsequently set aside. A Constitution Bench in Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267, held that a reasoned stay order, once granted, would remain in operation until the decision of the main matter or until an application was moved for its vacation and a speaking order was passed. The Constitution Bench described Asian Resurfacing as “a clear example of the same” of questing for justice but ending up doing injustice.
How the Coordinate Bench's Direction in Prem Chand Was Distinguished
A coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court had already grappled with part of this question in Prem Chand and Ors. v. Charat Kumar Bansal, 2025 (3) ADJ 86. That matter concerned a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC where the High Court had summoned the original record of the first appellate court and the trial court without even admitting the appeal. The original record had been lying before the High Court for seven years. An order dated 7 March 2019 said that mere pendency of the appeal would not amount to a stay of execution, but because the original record was before the High Court, execution proceedings were practically stalled.
The coordinate bench in Prem Chand issued directions that the original record should not be summoned by the office unless specifically directed, and that wherever originals had already been summoned, they should be remitted back to the concerned District Judgeship, which would then send photocopies or scanned copies.
Justice Vidyarthi accepted that the coordinate bench's directions were correctly issued in the factual setting before it. A civil decree has to be executed. The trial court needs its original record to carry out execution proceedings. Summoning the original record in a second appeal before admission, without a stay order, effectively obstructs execution without court sanction. The directions in Prem Chand addressed precisely that mischief.
Why a Concluded Criminal Trial Stands Apart
The entire rationale of the Asian Resurfacing directions — and of the coordinate bench's directions in Prem Chand — was to prevent the summoning of records from holding up live proceedings before the trial court. Justice Vidyarthi found that this rationale simply does not arise in a criminal appeal filed against a final order of conviction or acquittal.
Once a criminal trial concludes and the accused is either convicted or acquitted, nothing remains pending before the trial court. There are no further proceedings for which the trial court needs its record. Sending the original record to the High Court holds up nothing. The position is structurally different from a civil appeal, where the trial court must execute the decree, or from an interlocutory challenge to a charge-framing order, where the trial itself is pending.
The court also noted that some trial courts had misread the Asian Resurfacing directions to mean that original records need never be transmitted to the High Court in any situation. That reading was incorrect. The Supreme Court was addressing situations where summoning the record would create an unwarranted obstacle in continuing pending trial court proceedings. It did not direct that a trial court which has concluded its proceedings should withhold its record when called for.
Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules reinforces this. It carries a specific mandate that after notices are issued in a criminal appeal or revision, the record shall be sent for unless otherwise ordered. That rule applies with full force to appeals against conviction or acquittal orders.
Circulation to All Judicial Officers
To prevent recurrence of the same error across the State, Justice Vidyarthi directed that the order be circulated among all judicial officers of Uttar Pradesh. The direction is intended to ensure that courts do not continue reading the Asian Resurfacing photocopy-directions as a blanket exemption from transmitting original records to the High Court.
Order
The Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow was directed to forward the original record of Case No. 12 of 1998 in compliance of the earlier order dated 17 January 2013, without any further delay. Upon receipt, the office was directed to provide a copy of the record to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. The appeal was listed for hearing on 17 August 2026. The order was marked as speaking and reportable.