SANWAR MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Misc. Petition the order of the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Chirava dated March 9, 1987 has been challenged. Under the said order the learned Executive Magistrate held that his predecessor has not pronounced the order and as such it does not amount to judgment.

(2.) IT appears that a case under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was pending in the Court of Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chirava. The presiding officer had received his transfer order on February 18, 1987 though in the impugned order the date of transfer order has been stated as February 10, 1987. The final arguments were heard in the case on February 12, 1987 and the case was adjourned to February 21, 1987. But on February 18, 1987 it appears that the Presiding Officer was to be relieved and, therefore, he drew an order-sheet that the judgment has been written, signed and has been sealed in an envelop. IT was also mentioned that the successor will pronounce the order on February 21,1987. On February 21, 1987 though the Presiding Officer was present but he did not pronounce the judgment and on that day he was relieved and his successor took over the charge. The judgment could not be pronounced and the successor presiding officer fixed February 27, 1987 as the date. The question arose as to whether the judgment of the predecessor was a judgment in accordance with the law and whether the successor was bound to pronounce it. The petitioner's submission was that the judgment can be pronounced because it has been written and signed, whereas the case of the non-petitioner was that the successor has no right to pronounce the judgment. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order held that the judgment of his successor had not been pronounced and, therefore, it does come in the definition of judgment.