Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Let a probation report be called from concerned probation officer for next date of hearing.

Put up for arguments on sentence and consideration on probation report on 21.11.2013.

At this stage an application under section 353 CrPC for supply of copy of judgment is moved on behalf of convict.

As judgment is not typed as yet as order is announced at 04:00 PM and one regular stenographer is on leave today and the other regular stenographer is busy in doing other miscellaneous work. Therefore, this application shall be taken up on 15.11.2013 at 03:00 PM.

13. Clearly, the judgment does not satisfy the requirements of Section 353 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court in the proceeding sheet dated 12.11.2013 has record that the judgment is not yet typed. It is also not the case that the entire judgment was pronounced in open Court. Last paragraph of the proceeding sheet, recorded on 12.11.2013, records that the judgment is not typed as one regular steno was on leave and the other regular steno was busy in doing other miscellaneous work. The judgment was also not taken down by Court by hand. Since, the order dated 12.11.2013, merely declares the result of the trial without any judgment being available on record. It does not amount to a judgment in terms of Section 353 Cr.P.C. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh: (2017) 3 SCC 330.