KULDIP SINGH Vs. PRABHJOT ALIAS SILKY MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldip Singh, the husband, has moved the present petition under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has alleged that proceedings pending under Section 125, of the Code of Criminal Procedure which were moved by his wife Surinder Kaur and a minor daughter Skilki and wherein the judgment was pronounced by Shri K. L. Chopra. Judicial Magistrate I Class, Kharar awarding Rs. 350.00 as maintenance on 11-11-1991, be quashed.

(2.) The relevant record of the trial Court was requisitioned from Kharar and it appears that in a petition for maintenance moved under Section 125, of the Code of Criminal Procedure Shri K. L. Chopra, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Kharar recorded evidence and heard the parties on 6-111991 and he fixed the date for pronouncement of the order as 11-11-1991. The Learned Magistrate actually dictated the judgment, it was typed and some corrections were also made but it did not bear his signatures. He unfortunately died on 15-11-1991. This is a case where arguments were heard, judgment was dictated and it was typed and thereafter announced as well on the date fixed but it did not bear the signatures of the Judicial Magistrate and he passed away after a few days.

(3.) The plea raised on behalf of the husband that it is no judgment and that the execution proceeding now pending were ipso facto illegal, is not acceptable. In Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra AIR, 1974 SC 1880 it was observed that the failures of the Sessions Judge in not appending his signatures to the judgment at the time it was pronounced because of the judgment having not till then been transcribed was a procedural irregularity which would not vitiate the conviction of the accused. Here in the case in hand, the judgment was typed and announced but it was with the Presiding Officer for the usual purpose of corrections and formal signatures and he having passed away before this could be done, would not render it ineffective.