IN RE: ATHIPALAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of revision cases raises a point of considerable importance in the day to day administration of justice. If elates to announcing sentence before judgment which is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal pronouncement of delivery in open court by the trial judge and signing and dating it simultaneously and thereby terminating the criminal proceedings finally (Halsbury 2nd Edn. Vol. 9, pages 260 264; Emperor, v. Ma heswara Kondaya, ILR 31 Mad 543; Emperor v. Madho Singh, 41 Cr LJ 725 : A.I.R. 1940 Oudh 396; Kuppusami Rao v. The King A.I.R. 1949 FC 1, Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1939 FC 43; Surya Ra0 v. Sathiraju A.I.R. 1948 Mad 510; Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Basantakumar Pal v. Kamini Mohan A.I.R. 1957 Tripura 55.

(2.) One Sri K. Ramanujam, the Sub Magistrate of Rasipuram, has convicted the accused in G. G. Nos. 2101, 2113, 2236 and 2257 of 1959 Under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act. In all these cases the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5. It has been proved beyond doubt and the magistrate himself admits it that in none of these cases he wrote judgments and pronounced them and signed and dated them in open court as required by Sections 366 and 367 Crl. P.C. We are not concerned with the misericordiem explanation and that is a matter for the Administrative Department of the High Court to settle. "A7e have only concerned with this reference made by the District Magistrate that during his surprise inspection of the Rasipuram court he found that judgments had not been written at all and that the magistrate had merely noted in the docket1 sheet the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the District Magistrate has made this reference requesting the High Court to set aside the convictions and sentences.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor brings to my notice the following decisions on this point: B. Atchayya v. Emperor, ILR 27 Mad 237, where a judgment in a criminal trial was written and delivered some days after the prisoners were convicted and sentenced; and it was held that this was a violation of Sections 366 and 367 Crl. P. C. and was more than an irregularity, because it was a delect which vitiated the convictions and sentences. Queen Empress v. Hargobind Singh. ILR 14 All 242 approved; and Jhari Lai v. King Emperor, ILR .8 Pat 904 : A.I.R. 1930 Pat 148, where the essential parts of the judgment, that is, the statement of points for determination and the reasons for the decision, were not prepared until three weeks after the pronouncement of the judgment in open court, and it was held that the defect vitiated the conviction and sentence. ILR 14 All 242 and TLR 27 Mad 237 followed, Passing sentence before record Ing a judgment is dated and signed is illegal: Gulla v. Emperor A.I.R. 1942 Lah 100, Queen Empress v. Kamthia Girdharia, 1 Bom LR 160. A judgment before delivery is a mere opinion; it becomes a judgment only if pronounced and signed and dated; Nundeepnt Mahta v. Alexander Shaw, 13 Suth WR 209. Ramdhir Rai v. Emperor, . In re, Savarimuthu Pillai, ILR 40 Mad 108: 17 Cr. LJ 166 : A.I.R. 1917 Mad 340. Delivery must bo in open court. It must be by the Judge and cannot be delegated; it i: not a mere formality. Damu Senapati v. Sridhar Raj war, ILR 21 Cal 121, Rambit v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Rang. 44; Tilak Chandra Sarkar v. Baisa gomoff, ILR 23 Cal 502.