Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Procedure in Criminal Cases

29. Section 353 CrPC provides that judgment in every trial in a Criminal Court shall be pronounced by the Presiding Officer in open Court. The term "Presiding Officer" has been used in Sections 61, 70, 105, 265D, 265F, 340, 353 CrPC and Sections 366 and 367 CrPC, 1898. In Section 265F, the term „Presiding Officer of the Court‟ is used in contrast to the Section 353 which uses the term „Presiding Officer‟. In Section 265F, delivery of judgment is associated with a particular Court whereas Sections 353 CrPC and 366 CrPC, 1898 do not associate the delivery of a judgment with a particular Court. Section 367 CrPC, 1898 provides that the judgment shall be written by the Presiding Officer of the Court whereas there is no such stipulation in Section 353 CrPC.

Procedure adopted by Ld. ASJ has not resulted in any irregularity or illegality

39. It is not the case of the appellants herein that the ld. ASJ, Shri Jagdish Kumar has not complied with provisions of Section 353 CrPC while pronouncing the Judgment. It is not the case of the appellants that parties were not duly notified of the pronouncement in the cause list of the Court where matter was heard and evidence was recorded, in the cause list of the Court where order was pronounced or on the District Court website. It is also not the case of the appellants that the order/judgment has not been duly signed by ld. ASJ. It is also not the case of the Appellant that the language or contents of the order/judgment do not comply with Section 354 CrPC. As the entire evidence in the matter had been recorded and arguments had been heard, the trial stood completed on 06th March, 2020. As per Section 353 CrPC, judgment in every trial shall be pronounced „after termination of trial‟. It is also clear that sentencing is a separate stage of trial. It is not the case of the Appellants herein that in view of procedure followed by ld. ASJ, procedure prescribed under Section 235 CrPC for a hearing on sentence could not be complied with. As such, it is clear that procedure prescribed under CrPC has not been violated, at any stage, in the present appeals. Lapse of over four months in delivering the Impugned Judgment is an irregularity and can be cured

Submissions of Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Ld. amicus curiae

46. In the present case, the Judgment was delivered by ld. ASJ, Shri Jagdish Prasad in open Court on 09th July, 2020. The pronouncement is in consonance with Section 353 CrPC and thus, is a valid judgment and no prejudice has been caused to the accused resulting in failure of justice. Ld. ASJ had presided over the trial, appreciated the evidence and heard the final arguments of the case in terms of Section 235 CrPC on 29th February, 2020, 02nd March, 2020, 03rd March, 2020 and on 06th March, 2020, before reserving the judgment. The trial concluded in terms of Chapter XVIII CrPC, upon hearing of the arguments of the case on 06th March, 2020. The only proceeding left was the pronouncement of the judgment in terms of Section 353 CrPC.

(Emphasis Supplied)
61. In the present case there is no „failure of justice‟ as the predecessor Judge presided over the trial, heard the final arguments, authored the judgment and finally pronounced the judgment in consonance with Section 353 CrPC. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that any irregularity has been caused due to the delay in pronouncement, it is curable under Section 465 CrPC. In Jitender‟s case, the defect was not an irregularity but rather an illegality which could not be cured. The Judgment was pronounced in violation of Section 353 CrPC, which was held to be no Judgment in the eyes of law. In the present case, the Judgment passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge is valid and legal, and the case was referred to the Successor Judge to pass the order on sentence in terms of Section 235(2) CrPC. The Successor Judge has the jurisdiction to pass the Order on Sentence in terms of Section 35 CrPC.