ORDER
G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant praying that further proceedings in S.T. No. 388 of 1987 be stayed and the learned Vi Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi be restrained from delivering the judgment in the aforesaid case.
2. Udai Narain, the complainant applicant filed a criminal complaint against the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 under Sections 395, 397, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Session where the statement of complainant and some other witnesses was recorded. It appears that the record of the case was burnt in a fire, which broke out in the office and an order, was passed on 5-8-1989 to reconstruct the record. On 10-8-1989, the prosecution as well as the defence filed certain papers which were taken on record and 16-8-1989 was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 4-10-1989 the statement of some of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The order sheet of 11-12-1989 reads as follows :-
I have heard the complainant’s private counsel and have thoroughly examined the record, Judgment of acquittal orally pronounced in open Court at about 3.25 p.m.
3. There is another order sheet of the same date i.e. 11-12-1989 which has been written in Hindi wherein it is mentioned that subsequent to the pronouncements of order of acquittal, an application was moved by the complainant at about 4.00 p.m. for transferring the case to some other Court. It is also mentioned in the order sheet that a part of the judgment had been dictated by the learned Sessions Judge but on account of filing of transfer application by the complainant, he refrained from giving any further dictation in order to complete the judgment. Thereafter several dates were fixed for giving opportunity to the complainant to file stay order. On 14-3-1990, the record of the trial Court was summoned by this Court and consequently no further proceedings took place before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have heard Shri Prabhakar Singh for the complainant-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri V. Singh for the accused opposite parties.
5. The order sheet dated 11-12-1989 shows that the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge first orally pronounced the order acquitting the accused opposite parties and thereafter proceeded to dictate the judgment which was also not complete on account of filing of the transfer application by the complainant. The record of the trial Court does not contain even that part of the judgment, which is said to have been orally dictated in Court by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains a complete chapter on judgment and that is Chapter XXVII. Section 354 deals with language and contents of judgment and Section 353, Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for pronouncing a judgment. Sub-section (1) of Section 354 and Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 353 read as under :-
354. Language and contents of judgment, – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in Section 353, –
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court.
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
354. Judgment.The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders,
(a) by delivering the whole of the judgment; or
(b) by reading out the whole of the judgment, or
(c) 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.
7. A perusal of Section 354 would show that the judgment in every trial in any criminal Court of Original Jurisdiction shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In case of conviction, the judgment shall specify the offence or Section of the I.P.C. or other law under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. In case of acquittal the judgment shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted. Section 384 gives power to the Appellate Court to dismiss an appeal summarily. However, Sub-section (3) of this Section provides that where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is a Court of Session or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so. Section 387 provides that the rules contained in Chapter XXVII as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable to the judgment in appeal of a Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, a judgment in an appeal given by a Court of Session must contain point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. That apart, the pronouncement of judgment by the Court of Session in an appeal has to be done in a manner laid down Under Section 353, Cr. P. C.
8. The word “judgment” is not defined in the Code. It is a word of general import and normally it means judicial determination or decision of a Court. What is the precise meaning of the word judgment as used in the Code came up for consideration in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 194 : 1954 Cri LJ 475 and it was explained in following words :
A judgment is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal “pronouncement” or “delivery” in open Court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. The decision which is so pronoucement or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the Court as it is at the time of pronouncement. This is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the Court performs after the hearing. Everything else up till then is done out of Court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open Court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court. That is what constitutes the “judgment”.
9. A combined reading of Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C. shows that a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction or a learned Sessions Judge while delivering judgment in an appeal cannot first pronounce the operative part of the order and thereafter proceed to write the judgment. Either the whole of judgment has to be delivered in Court by writing or dictating the judgment or a previously written judgment can be pronounced by reading out the whole judgment or reading out the operative part of the judgment and thereafter signing every page of the judgment and giving date of pronouncement thereof. The judgment must contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.
10. What the learned Sessions Judge seems to have done in the present case was to first pronounce the operative part of the judgment and thereafter proceed to dictate the judgment to his stenographer. This was clearly contrary to the mandate of Sections 353 and 354, Cr. P. C. and as such the procedure followed by him was illegal. As mentioned earlier the record of the case does not contain the judgment or even a part thereof reference of which is mentioned in the order sheet dated 11-12-1989. In absence of any judgment on record the final decision in the case has not been rendered and the case has not yet concluded. In order to conclude the case the judgment has to be pronounced in accordance with Section 353, Cr. P.C.
11. In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The oral pronouncement of judgment of acquittal as recorded in the order sheet dated 11 -12-1989 as set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to conclude the sessions trial by pronouncing judgment in accordance with law after hearing counsel for the parties. It will be open to the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi either to hear the case himself or to assign it to some other Additional Sessions Judge in his Sessions division.
12. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court as early as possible.
