9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture 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 argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner has pleaded that on 28.05.2021, the Petitioner applied for urgent certified copies of the Judgments and Orders made in both the cases against receipt Nos. 18882 and 18883 dated 28.05.2021. The Petitioner visited the Court several times to collect the certified copies. Still, the staff always informed the Petitioner that the Judgments were not ready and that the certified copies would be supplied after 15 days. Additionally, the Petitioner has pleaded that the Judgments have not even been uploaded on the website of the Court. 7. The Petitioner, therefore, wrote to the Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao on 25.10.2021, but there was no response. The Petitioner, by his application dated 09.07.2021, in both cases, requested the learned JMFC to issue a non-bailable warrant against the accused persons. But such applications are not disposed of and are still pending. 8. The Petitioner has pleaded that, to his surprise, the accused persons instituted Criminal Appeals No.52/2021 and 53/2021 before the Additional Sessions Judge (DJ-2), South Goa at Margao, without certified copies of the Judgments and Orders convicting them. Accordingly, the Office of the Sessions Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it was observed that Criminal Case Nos.161/NI/2016/A and 162/NI/2016/A were disposed of on 05.03.2021/08.03.2021. However, no judgments were found in the records. Only roznama showed that the matter was disposed of, and the accused persons were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. 15. The inspection report records that upon inquiry with the Stenographer of the concerned Court and on perusal of the steno book, it was observed that the Judgments were neither dictated to the concerned steno nor found ready and duly signed as on the said date. Certified copy applications were verified, and it was found that the Advocate filed two applications for the accused persons seeking urgent certified copies. On such applications, an order issue dated 08.03.2021 passed and signed by the concerned Judge to issue a certified copy. There was no further order on these applications to extend the time for the issue of certified copies. 16. The Principal District Judge, on the following day, i.e., 06.04.2021, wrote to the learned JMFC directing her to clarify the above irregularities. Directions were also issued to the learned JMFC to complete the criminal ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022, and paragraphs 5,6 7 of this Order read as follows: 5. The Petitioner complains about non-compliance with the directions contained in our Order dated 11.07.2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No.73 of 2022. The Principal District Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao, is requested to file report latest by 03.10.2022 confirming whether or not there is compliance with the directions issued by us in paragraph 20 of our Order dated 11.07.2022. 6. From the material placed on record at least prima facie it appears to be no compliance. However, we wish to ascertain this position and therefore, request the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, to file a report at the earliest. 7. Stand over to 04.10.2022, high on board. 20. In compliance, the Principal District and Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao, has filed a compliance report dated 01.10.2022 before us after inspecting the Court of the learned JMFC. The above report dated 01.10.2022 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: CONFIDENTIAL M A R G A O No.DSC/MAR/PF-APF/CONF/2022/232 Establishment Code: GASGOI Dated : 1st October, 2022 To, Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions is convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced through its partners accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Accused No.2 Prakash Gogi being partner of Gogi Constructions is convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Accused No.3 Subhash Gogi being partner of Gogi Constructions is convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Accused No.4 Subhash Gogi being partner of Gogi Constructions is convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Further Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are jointly directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/(Rupees twenty lakhs only) to the complainant and in default, accused Nos, 2, 3 and 4 have to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The compensation amount if recovered from the accused to be paid to the complainant. Accused to furnish bond in terms of section 437-A of Cr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irability of considering the effect of such delay on the rights of the litigant public. Though reluctantly, the Court decided to consider this aspect and give appropriate directions for preserving and strengthening the belief of the people in the institution of the judiciary. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to R.C. Sharma V/s. Union of India (1976) 3 SCC 574 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 Court also referred to Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani V/s. H.P.A. International (2000) 2 SCC 13, where it was held that a long delay in delivering the judgment gives rise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had been acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated. However, a complaint was made that the learned Trial Judge had acquitted the accused persons, but no judgment had been rendered. The High Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge to inquire into the matter and submit the report. The report indicated that no judgments were found in the records of the cases. The learned Trial Judge had purportedly delivered the judgment, but they were not available on record as the judgments were not actually dictated, dated or signed. 31. After that, the matter was placed before the Full Court of the High Court, and the resolution was passed, placing the Trial Judge concerned under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The Full Court also decided to transfer the cases in question from the Court of trial Judge concerned to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge concerned for rehearing and disposal. 32. In the above facts, The Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the learned Trial Judge had really pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 31.10.2007 and whether the High Court could have, in the exercise o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 353, 354, 362 and 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code and made the following observations: 17. It is apposite to note that though CrPC does not define the term judgment , yet it has clearly laid down how the judgment is to be pronounced. The provisions clearly spell out that it is imperative on the part of the learned trial judge to pronounce the judgment in open Court by delivering the whole of the judgment or by reading out the whole of the judgment or by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader. 18. We have already noted that the judgment was not dictated in open Court. Code of Criminal Procedure provides reading of the operative part of the judgment. It means that the trial judge may not read the whole of the judgment and may read operative part of the judgment but it does not in any way suggest that the result of the case will be announced and the judgment would not be available on record. Non- availability of judgment, needless to say, can never be a judgment because there is no declaration by way of pronouncement in the open Court that the accused h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the Order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment. 31. It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them. The Supreme Court is the final Court in the hierarchy of our courts. Besides, orders without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional circumstances. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the concerned statutes. We thought it necessary to make these observations in Order that a practice which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its present infancy. 20. We have reproduced the aforesaid two passages from Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) case as the larger Bench has made such observations with regard to unreasoned judgments passed by the High Courts. The learned Chief Justice had noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight have felt delighted in acquittal and affected by the Order of rehearing, but they should bear in mind that they are not the lone receivers of justice. There are victims of the crime. Law serves both and justice looks at them equally. It does not tolerate that the grievance of the victim should be comatosed in this manner. 37. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (in K. Madan Mohan Rao V/s. Bheemrao Patil C.A No. 6972/2022 decided on 26.09.2022), after considering Anil Rai (supra), Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) held that a party to litigation could not be expected to wait indefinitely for the availability of reasons of the Order of the Court. The guidelines and observations in Anil Rai (supra), Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) remain fundamental to the course of disposition of justice in any case before the Court, and the principle set out therein must be followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with an issue where an order was pronounced but even after more than three months, reasons were not forthcoming, and the judgment was not available to either of the parties. 38. In Balaji Baliram Mupade anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra Ors. Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed order and refer to the earlier view on account of the fact that recently a number of such orders have come to our notice and we thought it is time to send a reminder to the High Courts. 14. We have little option in the aforesaid facts of the case but to set aside the impugned Order and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the High Court on merits, uninfluenced by the reasons which have been finally disclosed in respect of the impugned Order. 15. Needless to say, the matter would be taken up by a Bench not consisting of the Members who constituted the Bench earlier. 40. 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. 41. Considering the unfortunate facts and circumstances, the submissions made, and the law on the subject, we quash and set aside the orders convicting the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
