The Supreme Court has held that a judgment which is not available on record is not a judgment at all..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy noted that “a fair trial leading to a judgment is necessitous in law”..The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. A marriage between the appellant and his wife was solemnized according to Hindu rites. Roughly a year later, the wife committed suicide. The husband and other family members were charged with causing her death by dowry demands. The Trial Court acquitted the family of the crime..What is noteworthy is that the trial Judge passed an order in the order sheet that recorded that the accused persons had been acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated..However, a member of the State Bar Council sent a complaint to the Registry of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur alleging that learned trial judge had acquitted the accused persons but no judgment had been rendered in the matter..The Registrar of the High Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur to inquire into the matter and submit a report..In response to a memorandum issued by the Registrar of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge submitted a report stating that no judgment pertaining to such a case was found on record. It was also brought to the notice of the court that though the trial judge had purportedly delivered the judgments but they were not available on record as the judgments had not actually been dictated, dated or signed..Thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court of the High Court which passed a resolution placing the concerned trial judge under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. At the same time, the Full Court took the decision to transfer the cases in question from the concerned trial judge to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal..This led to writ petition being filed by the accused in the case challenging the administrative decision of the High Court. The case then eventually reached the Supreme Court..The apex court was called to determine two issues, namely, whether the learned trial judge had really pronounced the judgment of acquittal and whether the High Court could have in exercise of its administrative power treated the trial as pending and transferred the same from the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal..Regarding the first issue, the court said that it was imperative to pronounce judgment in open court..“It is apposite to note that though CrPC does not define the term “judgment”, yet it has clearly laid down how the judgment is to be pronounced. The provisions clearly spell out that it is imperative on the part of the learned trial judge to pronounce the judgment in open court by delivering the whole of the judgment or by reading out the whole of the judgment or by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.”.Since in the instant case, the judgment was not pronounced in open court and there was no judgment available on record, the Court concluded that the judgment could not be said to be a judgment in terms of Section 353 of CrPC..The Court answered the second issue in the affirmative holding that the High Court was entitled to set aside the order of the trial court, and the transfer of cases to District and Sessions Judge is valid..“In a piquant situation like the present one, we are disposed to think that the High Court was under legal obligation to set aside the order as it had no effect in law. The High Court has correctly done so as it has the duty to see that sanctity of justice is not undermined. The High Court has done so as it has felt that an order which is a mere declaration of result without the judgment should be nullified and become extinct.”.The Court therefore, dismissed the matter, but not before addressing a few words admonishing the Trial Court Judge..“The case at hand constrains us to say that a trial Judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has a lawful duty to record the evidence in the prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated in Section 309 of the CrPC and pronounce the judgment as provided under the Code. A Judge in charge of the trial has to be extremely diligent so that no dent is created in the trial and in its eventual conclusion. Mistakes made or errors committed are to be rectified by the appellate court in exercise of “error jurisdiction”. That is a different matter. But, when a situation like the present one crops up, it causes agony, an unbearable one, to the cause of justice and hits like a lightning in a cloudless sky.”.Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court has held that a judgment which is not available on record is not a judgment at all..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy noted that “a fair trial leading to a judgment is necessitous in law”..The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. A marriage between the appellant and his wife was solemnized according to Hindu rites. Roughly a year later, the wife committed suicide. The husband and other family members were charged with causing her death by dowry demands. The Trial Court acquitted the family of the crime..What is noteworthy is that the trial Judge passed an order in the order sheet that recorded that the accused persons had been acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated..However, a member of the State Bar Council sent a complaint to the Registry of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur alleging that learned trial judge had acquitted the accused persons but no judgment had been rendered in the matter..The Registrar of the High Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur to inquire into the matter and submit a report..In response to a memorandum issued by the Registrar of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge submitted a report stating that no judgment pertaining to such a case was found on record. It was also brought to the notice of the court that though the trial judge had purportedly delivered the judgments but they were not available on record as the judgments had not actually been dictated, dated or signed..Thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court of the High Court which passed a resolution placing the concerned trial judge under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. At the same time, the Full Court took the decision to transfer the cases in question from the concerned trial judge to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal..This led to writ petition being filed by the accused in the case challenging the administrative decision of the High Court. The case then eventually reached the Supreme Court..The apex court was called to determine two issues, namely, whether the learned trial judge had really pronounced the judgment of acquittal and whether the High Court could have in exercise of its administrative power treated the trial as pending and transferred the same from the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal..Regarding the first issue, the court said that it was imperative to pronounce judgment in open court..“It is apposite to note that though CrPC does not define the term “judgment”, yet it has clearly laid down how the judgment is to be pronounced. The provisions clearly spell out that it is imperative on the part of the learned trial judge to pronounce the judgment in open court by delivering the whole of the judgment or by reading out the whole of the judgment or by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.”.Since in the instant case, the judgment was not pronounced in open court and there was no judgment available on record, the Court concluded that the judgment could not be said to be a judgment in terms of Section 353 of CrPC..The Court answered the second issue in the affirmative holding that the High Court was entitled to set aside the order of the trial court, and the transfer of cases to District and Sessions Judge is valid..“In a piquant situation like the present one, we are disposed to think that the High Court was under legal obligation to set aside the order as it had no effect in law. The High Court has correctly done so as it has the duty to see that sanctity of justice is not undermined. The High Court has done so as it has felt that an order which is a mere declaration of result without the judgment should be nullified and become extinct.”.The Court therefore, dismissed the matter, but not before addressing a few words admonishing the Trial Court Judge..“The case at hand constrains us to say that a trial Judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has a lawful duty to record the evidence in the prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated in Section 309 of the CrPC and pronounce the judgment as provided under the Code. A Judge in charge of the trial has to be extremely diligent so that no dent is created in the trial and in its eventual conclusion. Mistakes made or errors committed are to be rectified by the appellate court in exercise of “error jurisdiction”. That is a different matter. But, when a situation like the present one crops up, it causes agony, an unbearable one, to the cause of justice and hits like a lightning in a cloudless sky.”.Read the judgment below.