RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner and sixteen others were tried by Shri S.S. Raikhy, learned Sessions Judge of Sangrur Division, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201, Indian Penal Code. After full trial all the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge on 30th January, 1976. The order of acquittal was pronounced in open court and the accused were set at liberty. The learned Sessions Judge made a note to that effect in the order sheet. He did not, however, deliver or read out the whole of the judgment. In fact, he did not write or dictate, before or at the time when he pronounced the order of acquittal, a judgment as contemplated by Section 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, containing the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The only written order made on 30th January, 1976, was the note in the order sheet. Thereafter, Shri Raikhy started writing a judgment in the manner contemplated by Section 354, Code of Criminal Procedure; and wrote about eight pages. Before he could complete the judgment, he died on 12th February, 1976. Shri Raikhy's successor, Shri Dev Raj Saini was of the view that there was no judgment 'in the eye of law' and passed an order proposing to try the accused once again for the offences with which they were originally charged. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to have the proceedings before the Sessions Judge quashed.

(2.) THE question for Consideration is, whether the learned Sessions Judge is entitled to subject the Petitioner and the other accused to fit fresh trial. In the case of a trial before the Court of Session, Section 282 provides that if, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal. Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support there of Section 235(1) directs the Sessions Judge to give a judgment in the Case after the completion of the evidence and the arguments. If the accused is convicted, the Judge is required to pass sentence on him according to law. In the case of a trial of a warrant case by a Magistrate, at the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate if he finds the accused not guilty is required to record an order of acquittal, if he finds the accused guilty, he is required to pass sentence upon him according to law (vide Section 248, Code of Criminal Procedure). In the case of trial of a summons case by a Magistrate, Section 252, Code of Criminal Procedure, makes similar -provision for recording an order of acquittal where the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty and for passing sentence on him according to law where he finds the accused guilty. Section 300 enacts a bar against the trial of an accused for the same offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Section 353 prescribes the manner of pronouncement of the judgment. In every trial in any criminal Court of original jurisdiction the judgment is required to be pronounced in open Court in either of the following three ways:

(3.) IN Firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath v. Firm Nand Ram Dass : A.I.R. 1938 P.C. 292, their Lordships of the Privy Council, referring to Order 41, Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes the contents of the judgment and manner of its pronouncement, observed: