9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 262 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - failure of the learned JMFC, Quepem (A Court), in supplying certified copies of judgments and orders in criminal cases - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to R.C. Sharma V/s. Union of India 1976 (5) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT held that though the CPC did not provide a time limit to deliver a judgment, unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points the litigants consider important may have escaped notice. But, more importantly, litigants must have complete confidence in litigation results. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is an excessive delay between hearing arguments and delivery of judgment. Justice must not only be done but manifestly appear to be done - The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the intention of the legislature regarding the pronouncement of judgments could be inferred from the provisions of Section 353(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open Court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words some subsequent time mentioned in Section 353 contemplates the passing of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in the pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of law. In this case, the learned JMFC only declared the trial result by pronouncing in open Court that the accused persons were convicted and sentenced. No judgment, as such, was prepared and furnished to the parties despite the mandate of Sections 353 and 354 of Cr.P.C. notwithstanding - In the facts of the present case, the learned Counsel agreed that the best course of action to be followed would be to quash and set aside the orders dated 05.03.2021 convicting and sentencing the respondents and remanding the matter to the learned JMFC, Quepem, B Court (and not A Court) for hearing final arguments based on the evidence already led by the parties and passing judgments and orders within a prescribed timeline. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to supply certified copies of judgments and orders by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Quepem. 2. Conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Non-compliance with previous court orders directing the issuance of certified copies. 4. Legal implications of not providing a written judgment after pronouncing the operative part in open court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Failure to Supply Certified Copies of Judgments and Orders: The main issue in this case is the failure of the learned JMFC, Quepem (A Court), to supply certified copies of judgments and orders in Criminal Case Nos. 161/NI/OA/2016/A and 162/NI/OA/2016/A after pronouncing them in open court on 05.03.2021. Despite an order dated 11.07.2022 directing the JMFC to provide the certified copies within ten days, the JMFC neither prepared the judgment nor issued any copies to the parties. This prompted the Petitioner to file a second petition. 2. Conviction and Sentencing Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The Petitioner had filed criminal complaints against M/s. Gogi Construction and its partners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 05.03.2021, the JMFC convicted the accused, directing them to pay the cheque amount and sentenced them to one month of imprisonment, with an additional six months in default of payment. The sentence was suspended for 30 days to allow the accused to appeal. 3. Non-Compliance with Previous Court Orders: Despite the order dated 11.07.2022 from the Division Bench of the High Court directing the JMFC to provide certified copies within ten days, there was no compliance. The Principal District Judge, South Goa, confirmed that the JMFC had not prepared the judgments or issued certified copies, despite multiple reminders and inspections. 4. Legal Implications of Not Providing a Written Judgment: The failure to provide a written judgment after pronouncing the operative part in open court is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Section 353(1) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the judgment in every trial must be pronounced in open court, and Section 353(4) requires that the judgment or a copy thereof be immediately made available to the parties. The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh emphasize the necessity of timely pronouncement and availability of judgments to maintain the litigants' confidence in the judicial system. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the orders convicting and sentencing the respondents in Criminal Case Nos. 161/NI/OA/2016/A and 162/NI/OA/2016/A and remanded the cases to the JMFC, B Court at Quepem, for rehearing and passing judgments based on the already led evidence. The court directed the JMFC to complete this exercise within six weeks from the date of receiving an authenticated copy of the order. The court also disposed of the related criminal appeals as infructuous and directed the Registrar (Administration) to take necessary actions based on the Principal District Judge's report. The court expressed regret for the prejudice suffered by the parties due to the JMFC's failure to prepare and furnish certified copies, which hindered the appeals and the recovery of compensation. The rule was made absolute, and no order for costs was issued.
|
