PITAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Pritam against the dismissal of his appeal against his conviction under Section 394 IPC and a sentence of three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo a further R. I. for three months.

(2.) THIS revision is being pressed only on a point of law. It is pointed out that in this case two judgments were given by the learned Sessions Judge. One was given on 13-6-1979. By this judgment described as a operative portion of the order and after mentioning the order of the trial court and also mentioning having heard the parties in the appeal, he had observed that there was no merit in the same and that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. He then mentioned as follows :- "Therefore this operation of the judgment is being pronounced today. Detailed judgment with reasons shall be given later on. The appeal is dismissed. Let the accused be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence." Then there is again an endorsement "Operative portion of the judgment signed, dated and pronounced in open court today."

(3.) BEFORE dealing with these submissions, the relevant part of law relating to judgment may be pointed out. Section 353 CrPC deals with the judgment. It deals with the manner in which, the judgment is to be pronounced. Section 354 deals with the language and the contents of the judgment. Section 353 provides the following three modes of pronouncement of the judgment :- (a) By delivering the whole of the judgment; (b) By reading out the whole of the judgment; (c) by reading out the operative pari! of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.