1974 (8) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Lawfulness of imprisonment without a signed judgment at the time of pronouncement.
2. Delay in providing a copy of the judgment to the accused.
3. Procedural irregularity regarding the signing of the judgment.
4. Validity of the Registrar's refusal to place the petition before the High Court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Lawfulness of Imprisonment Without a Signed Judgment:
The primary issue was whether a convicted person can be considered lawfully imprisoned if the trial judge dictates the judgment but does not sign it at the time of pronouncement. The court concluded that the dictation of the concluding part of the judgment in open court by the Sessions Judge should be taken as tantamount to the pronouncement of the judgment. The procedural requirement of signing the judgment at the time of pronouncement was considered a procedural irregularity, curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and did not vitiate the conviction.

2. Delay in Providing a Copy of the Judgment:
The petitioner argued that he could not be detained for seven months without being supplied a copy of the judgment. The court acknowledged that the delay of more than nine months in supplying the copy of the judgment was wholly unjustified and highlighted the need for prompt transcription and supply of judgment copies to the accused. The court emphasized that such delays could affect the liberty of the subject and the right to appeal.

3. Procedural Irregularity Regarding the Signing of the Judgment:
The court examined whether the failure of the trial judge to sign the judgment at the time of its pronouncement constituted a procedural irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court referred to previous judgments, including Firm Gokal Chand v. Firm Nand Ram and Surendra Singh & Ors v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, to conclude that the failure to sign the judgment at the time of pronouncement was a procedural irregularity that did not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court.

4. Validity of the Registrar's Refusal to Place the Petition Before the High Court:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Registrar's order declining to place his petition before the High Court due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The court found no sufficient ground to quash the Registrar's order, emphasizing that the rules requiring petitions to be sent through the Jail Superintendent and countersigned by him were designed to ensure the authenticity of the petition and safeguard against potential mischief.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three petitions, concluding that the procedural irregularities did not vitiate the conviction and that the petitioner was lawfully imprisoned. The court also declined to quash the Registrar's order and emphasized the need for prompt supply of judgment copies to the accused. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Bombay High Court for appropriate action regarding the prompt supply of judgment copies.