- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. The revision has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge Agra whereby the appeal against the convic tion and sentence passed by the City Munsif Magistrate, Agra on 15-2-1982 in Criminal Case No. 1868 of 1981, State v. Munni Lal and others, was confirmed.
(2.) THE revision was filed in 1983 and is pending since then. During this period it was found out that the record of the case had been weeded out in the Record Room of the Sessions Judge. A letter was sent by this Court to the Sessions Judge, Agra for reconstruction of the record. THE Sessions Judge, Agra vide his letter dated 12th January, 2000 informed this Court that he made all efforts for reconstruction of the file and he stated that in the circumstances of the case, it is not possible that the record maybe reconstructed. The learned Counsel for the revisionist also states that he is only in possession of the copy of the judgment and other papers relating to the case are not in his possession. It is thus clear that the reconstruction of the record is not pos sible. In the circumstances of the case the learned Counsel for the appellants con tended that the revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is entitled to acquittal in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath v. State, 1981 ACrr 431, wherein it is mentioned that various at tempts made to reconstruct the record failed and the material available on record was not sufficient appeal on merit and it was ordered that the accused be acquitted and no order of retrial can be passed. In that case only 11 years have passed while in this case about 17 years have passed. Considering the facts and cir cumstances stated above the revision is allowed. The revisionist is acquitted. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are dis charged. Revision allowed. .;