IQBAL ISMAIL SODAWALA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 710 · Decided: 13-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

710 
IQBAL ISMAIL SODAWALA 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
August 13, 1974 
[H.R. KHANNA AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Code of Crbninal Procedure, Sections 366, 367 and 537-Trial Judge dictating 
judgment in open Court-Non-signing of the judg'ment, whether an irregularity-
Prisoner, if properly bnprisoned. 
The petitioner was tried in the City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bon1bay 
for offences under ss. 392 and 397 I.P.C. The petitioner was found guilty of those 
offences and was sentenced as per judgment dt. May 12, 1972 to undergo rigorous 
imprisonn1ent for a period of 7 years. 
The petitioner was und.ergoing his prison 
sentence in Nagpur jail. 
According to the petitioner, he asked for a copy of the judgment \Yhen it was 
pronounced but he was infonned that he would get it through jail authorities. The 
petitioner, thereafter, asked the jail authorities to get a copy of the judgment so as 
to enable him to file an appeal. The jail authorities informed hirn that despite 
number of communications, a copy of the judgment was not available and hence 
petitions Nos. 1523 of 1973 and 1522 of 1973 were filed from jail. 
A 
B 
c 
In support of his prayer for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner stated that the 
D 
judgment was not pronounced by the sessions judge and that only the clerk of the 
Court apprised hin1 of the decision of the case. No judgment, could be pronounced 
till it was complete and therefore, the petitioner could not be detained for 7 months 
without being supplied \vith a copy of the judg1nent. 
The trial judge, to whom notice of the petition was sent, had stated that the 
judgments were ordinarily dictated by him in open Court and only the final order 
was intimated to the accused by the Sheristedar of the Court. It was further stated 
that the petitioner could not be immediately supplied with a copy of the judgment 
E 
as the same had to be transcribed from shorthand in the office. 
The affidavit filed by the Superientendent of Nagpur Central prison, discloses 
that a copy of thejudgn1ent was received by the jail authorities.after 9 months of 
the date of the judgment and the same was immediately handed over-to the petitioner. 
The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the High Court; but it \vas dismis-
sed. 
It was contended by the petitioner's Counsel that the procedure adopted by the 
learned sessions judge was not in accordance with law; because under secs. 366 
and 367 of Criminal Procedure, a judgment must be pronounced or the substance 
explained in open Court and must be dated and signed by the presiding officer 
at the time of pronouncing it and under sec. 371, a copy of the judgn1ent shall be 
given to the accused without delay. Further the petitioner in his petition no. 1637 
of 1973 questioned the validity of the Registrar's order declining to place before 
the Court a petition received by post from the petitioner as the same \vas not accom-
panied by a copy of the register of petitiOn duly filled in by the Jail Superintendent. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure is essentially a Code of Procedure 
and like all procedural law, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to 
frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. At the same time it 
has to be borne in mind that it is procedure that spells much of the difference between 
rule of law and rule by whim and caprice. The object of the Code is to ensure for 
the accused a full and fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 
If there be substantial compliance with the requirements of law, a mere procedural 
irregularity would not vitiate the trial unless the same results in miscarriage of justice. 
In all procedural laws certain things are vital. Disregard of the provisions in res .. 
pect of them would prove fatal to the trial and would invalidate the conviction. 
F 
G 
H 
f 
~ 
.,._ 
~ 
• ' 
.. 
~--
J_ 
.. 
• 
' 
t 
A 
c 
E 
I, s. SODAWALA V. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.) 
711 
T~ere are, however, other requirements which are not so vital. Non-compliance 
with them \vould amount to an irregularity which would be curable unless it has 
resulted in a failure of justice. Section 537 of the Code is designed to ensure that 
no order of a competent court should in the absence of failure of justice be rever3ed 
or altered in appeal or revision on account ofa procedural irregularity. l715C-H] 
. (2) In the present case, failure of the learned Sessi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.