LexSURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1953
Nov. 16, 23.
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
[MUKHER,JEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Practice-J1tdgrnent-O{tse hearcl by t1vo J1tdges-Jndgnient
sign.ed by both-Dea.th of one of then~ -Deli'very by the other- Valid~
ity of judgment-Allahabad High Court R1lles, 1952, Chap. VII,
"'" 1-4.
Where a case was heard by a Bench of two .Judges and the
judgment was signed by both of them bnt it was delivered in court
by one of them after the death of the other: Held, that there
was no valid judgment and the case should be re-beard.
A judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the
parties and the world at larg6 by formal "pronouncement" or "deli~
very" in open court and until a judgment is delivered, the judges
have a right to change their mind.
Firm Gokal Chand v. Firm Nand Rani (A.LR. 1938 P.O. 292)
and MahomedAkil v. Asad11nni<Sa Bibee (9 W. R. 1 F.B.) refer-
red to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
.JumsnrnTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 34of1953.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the
5th ,January, 1953, of the High Court cif Judicature at
Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow (Kidwai and
Bhargava JJ.) in Criminal Appeal Register No. 24 of
1952 and Capital Sentence Register No. 4 of 1952
arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 19th
January, 1952, of the Court of the Sessions ,Judge,
Sitapur, in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1951.
JaiGopalSethi (K. P. Gupta, with him) for the
appellant.
G. C. Mathur and Onkar Nath Sriva,slava for the
respondent.
1953. November 16.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BosE J.-We have three appellants before us.
All
were prosecuted for the murder of one Babu Singh. Of
these, Surendra Singh alone was convicted of the
murder and was sentenced to death. The other two
were convicted under section 225, Indian Penal Code.
.,
;
•
>
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
331
Each was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprison-
ment and to a fine of Rs. 200.
All three appealed to the High Court at Allahabad
(Lucknow Bench) and the appeal was heard on 11th
December, 1952, by Kidwai and Bhargava JJ. Judg-
ment was reserved.
Before it could be delivered
Bhargava J. was transferred to Allahabad. While there
he dictated a "judgment" purporting to do so on
behalf of himself and his brother Judge, that is to say,
it purported to be a joint judgment : he used the pro-
noun "we" and not "I". He signed every page of the
"judgment" as well as at the end but did not date it.
He then sent this to Kidwai J. at Lucknow.
He died
on 24th December, 1952, before the "judgment" was
delivered.
After his death, on 5th January, 1953, his
brother Judge Kidwai J. purported to deliver the
"judgment" of the court. He signed it and dated it.
The date he placed on it was 5th January, 1953.
Bhargava J.'s signature was still there and anyone
reading the judgment and not knowing the facts would
conclude that Bhargava J. was a party to the delivery
on 5th January, 1953.
The appeal was dismissed and
the sentence of death was confirmed. The question is
whether this "judgment" could be validly delivered
after the death of one of the two Judges who heard
the appeal.
The arguments covered a wide range but we intend
to confine ourselves to the facts of this case and only
deal with the narrower issues which arise here.
Delivery' of judgment is a solemn act which carries
with it serious consequences for the person or persons
involved. In a criminal case it often means the differ-
ence between freedom and jail, and when there is a
conviction with a sentence of imprisonment, it alters
the status of a prisoner from an under-trial to that of
a convict ; also the term of his sentence starts from
the moment judgment is delivered. It is therefore
necessary to know with certainty exactly when these
consequences start to take effect. For that reason
rules have been drawn up to determine the manner in
which and the time from when the decision is to take
44
1963
Surmdra Singh
and Others
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh.
Bose J.
1953
Surendra Singh
and Otlurs
v.
The State of
Uttnr Pradesh.
Hosr .!.
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
effect and crystallise into an act which is thereafter
final so far as the court delivering the judgment is
concerned.
Now these rules are not all the same though they
are designed to achieve the same result. The Criminal
Procedure Code takes care of couExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.