AJAY SINGH AND ANR. AND ETC. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 06-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] I S.C.R. 286 
AJAY SINGH AND ANR. AND ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 32-33 of2017) 
JANUARY 06, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XVII, s.353 -
Judgment - Trial court, after conclusion of criminal trial, recorded 
in order sheet that accused persons had been acquilled as per 
iudgment separately typed, signed and dated - Whether such order 
can be treated as judgment of acquittal having been pronounced -
Held: It is imperative on the trial court to pronounce the judgment 
in open court by delivering whole judgment or by reading out the 
whole judgment or by reading out the operative part of the 
iudgment - In the present case, judgment was not dictated in open 
court - There was only an incomplete judgment and no page thereof 
was signed by the presiding officer - If the judgment is not complete 
and signed, it cannot be a judgment in terms of s. 353, Cr.P.C. -
Non-availability of judgment can never be a judgment because there 
is no declaration by way of pronouncement in the open court. 
Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Administrative power 
under - Scope of - Trial court on conclusion of criminal trial 
recorded that the accused had been acquitted as per judgment 
separately typed, signed and dated - Complaint to High Court 
against the trial judge - On inquiry found that the judgment was 
not available on record as the same was not dictated. dated or 
signed - Full court of High Court, in exercise of its administrative 
power treated the trial as pending and transferred the case to another 
court for rehearing and disposal - 'competence of the High Court 
to transfer the' case -
Held: Art. 22 7 confers powers of 
superintendence on the High Court - The High Court has 
iurisdiction and authority to exercise suo motu poll'er - High Court 
was under legal obligation to set aside the order as it had no effect 
in law - High Court by rectifying the grave error has acted in 
furthera111:e of the cause of justice - There is no illegality. 
286 
AJAY SINGH AND ANR. AND ETC. v. STATE OF 
287 
CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.l Though CrPC does not define the term 
"judgment", yet it has clearly laid down how the judgment is to 
be pronounced. The provisions of Cr.P.C. clearly spell out that it 
is imperative on the part of the trial judge to pronounce the 
judgment iu open court by delivel'iug 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. [Para 16) [297-C-D) 
1.2 In the present case, judgment was not dictated in open 
court. Cr.P.C. provides reading of the operative part of the 
judgment. It means that the trial judge may not read the whole of 
the judgment and may read operative part of the judgment but it 
does not in any way suggest that the result of the case will be 
announced and the judgment would not be available on record. 
Non- availability of judgment, can never be a judgment because 
there is no declaration by way of pronouncement in the open court 
that the accused has been convicted or acquitted. A judgment, as 
has been always understood, is the expression of an opinion after 
due consideration of the facts which deserve to be determined. 
Without pronouncement of a judgment in the open court, signed 
and dated, it is difficult to treat it as a judgment of conviction. 
[Para 17] [297-E-1<'1. 
Re. Athipalayan and Ors. AIR 196(; Mad 507 - relied 
on. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1.3 On inquiry, the High Court in the administrative side 
F 
had found there was no judgment available on record. In the 
counter affidavit filed by the High Court, it has been mentioned 
that an incom1>lete typed judgment of 14 pages till paragraph 
No. 19 was available. The affidavit also states that it was 
incomplete and no page had the signature of ihe presiding officer. 
G 
If the judgment is not complete and signed, it cannot be a judgment 
in terms of Section 353 CrPC. It is unimaginable tha.t a judgment 
is pronounced without there being a judgment. It is gross 
illegality. · [Para 17) (297-G-H; 298-A-B] 
H 
288 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) I S.C.R. 
Stale of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 
[1984) 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1 SCC 596 ~ followed. 
1.4 In the instant case, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.