9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Failure to announce sentence before judgment in criminal cases. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of announcing sentence before judgment in criminal cases. The revision cases involved a Sub-Magistrate who convicted the accused in multiple cases under the Madras Prohibition Act without writing, pronouncing, signing, and dating the judgments as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Magistrate raised a reference to set aside the convictions and sentences due to this procedural irregularity. The court highlighted the importance of pronouncing judgments in open court and emphasized that passing sentence before recording a judgment is illegal. The judgment cited various precedents to support the position that failing to follow these procedural requirements vitiates the conviction and sentence. The court referred to past decisions where delays in writing and delivering judgments after conviction were deemed violations of procedural requirements, leading to convictions being set aside. It emphasized that judgments must be pronounced in open court, signed, and dated by the judge to ensure the legality of the conviction and sentence. The judgment reiterated that adherence to these formalities is crucial in criminal jurisprudence to prevent prejudice to the accused. It underscored that the principles of criminal jurisprudence do not allow for trying or sentencing individuals without following the prescribed procedures, including pronouncing judgments in open court. Ultimately, the court accepted the references made by the District Magistrate, setting aside the convictions and sentences in the cases under review. The court did not order a re-trial but indicated that the Sub-Magistrate's behavior would be addressed administratively. The judgment concluded by highlighting the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal cases to ensure the fairness and legality of the judicial process.
|
