TMI Blog1950 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment putting our initials to the transcript. Mr. Amin saw me in the Chambers on Wednesday the 20th, I suggested to him that he the Advocate General should mention the matter to us in open Ct. on next day. It was accordingly mentioned on the 21st morning, we have now had the matter argued before us. 2. Three points arise for our consideration. The first is whether it is open to us to review or alter a judgment which we delivered in open Ct. on September 13. Secondly, if it was open to us to review the judgment, what should be the limits of such a review. And lastly, if we had the power to review, the matter falls within the limits within which such a review could be made, then what is the effect of such review on the decision at which we had already arrived. 3. So far as the first point is concerned, Mr. Amin relied primarily on the provisions of Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure. That section is in the following terms : Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other aw for the time being in force or, in the oase of a H. C. for a Part A State, by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such H. C., no Ct., when it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very wording of the section itself implies that before a judgment has been signed, it was open to the Ct. to alter or review it. This argument would have had considerable force, were it not for the provisions of Section 424, Cr. P. C. That sections enacts : The rules contained in Chap. XXVI as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment of any Appellate Ct. other than a H. C. Then there is a proviso with which we are not concerned. Section 369 is contained in chap. 26, Criminal P. C., the wording of Section 424 makes it clear that all the rules contained in chap. 26, are rules governing judgments of a criminal Ct. of original jurisdiction. Section 424 makes these rules applicable, so far as may be practicable, to the judgments of an appellate Ct. Even so, it has been laid down that they apply to an appellate Ct. other than a H. C. It would therefore, follow that the rules contained in chap 26 relating to judgments, have no application to the judgment of a H. C. exercising appellate jurisdiction. Section 369, Cr. P. C. does not, therefore, apply, so far as the criminal appellate judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been delivered a writ in pursuance thereof issued Sulaiman C.J. in Emperor v. Pragmadho Singh has taken the same view. In that case, certain judgments had been given by Mr. Justice Banerji. But the learned Judge died before some of the judgments could be signed, as required by certain rules of the Allahabad H. 0. It was argued that the orders passed by Banerji J. could not be regarded as finally disposing of the appeals, inasmuch as the judgments had not been signed. Sulaiman C. J. observed (p 183): It is quite clear that Section 866 of the Cri. P. C. which requires that the judgment of every trial in any criminal Ct. of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Ct. Section 367 which provides that the written judgment should be dated signed by the presiding officer in open Ct. do not apply to ft H C. Chapter 26 applies to judgments delivered by criminal courts of original jurisdiction Section 424 of the Act makes the rules contained in Chapter 26 as to the judgments of criminal courts of original jurisdiction applicable to judgments of any appellate court 'other than a H. C.' There is therefore no provision which requires that the H. C. after pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclining to interfere on the reference made to him. To that extent the order had not received finality. That order had not been sealed as an order of the Ct under para. 5 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad H. C. The second point to be noted is that the judgment of the Teamed Judges makes no reference either to Section 369 or Section 424 of the Cri. P. C. Further, the judgment clearly appears to have been based on Rule 83 of the Rules of that Court, which in terms appears to have specified that a judgment was not complete until it was signed sealed. That case, therefore, stands on its own facts is baaed primarily on the special rules of the Allahabad H. C. The second judgment of that Ct. to which Mr. Amin made reference was Emperor v. Kallu, 27 ALL. 92: (1 Cr. L. J. 710). In that case, there was an appeal from jail against an order under Section 110 of the Cri. P.C. The jail appeal was dismissed on 10-5-1904. The learned Judge signed the order, but the order was not sealed. An appln. was made by counsel on 14-5-1904, in respect of the same matter. The appln. was admitted on 4-6 1904. When the matter came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was taken that the learned Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad no jurisdiction to revive an order of discharge which had been passed by another Mag. being erroneously under the impression that the Sub-Divisional Mag. had revived an order of discharge passed by the Mag. to whom the case was sent for trial. A few minutes after the judgment was delivered, before it was signed, the petnrs. vakil pointed out that the Sub-Divisional Mag. had revived an order of discharge passed by himself, that it was competent for him to do so on the authority of the Full Bench in Mir Ahwad Hossein v. Mahomed Askari, 29 Cal. 726: (6 C. W. N. 633 F. B.). Thereupon a rule was issued, when it came on for hearing a preliminary objection was taken that the Bench could not, having delivered its judgment discharging the rule, review the same. The learned Judges referred to the case of In the matter of Gibbons, 14 Cal. 42 (F. B.) held that it was competent for them to do so, as the terms of Section 369 of the Cri. P. C., were granted as they had not signed the judgment. They thought that their view could easily be inferred from the case of In the matter of Gibbons, 14 Cal. 42 (F. B.) they relied on Queen-Empress v. Lalit Tiwari, 21 ALL 177: (1899 A.W.N. 15) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rehear the appeal or to alter the judgment delivered on the former occasion. The learned Judges, relying upon the provisions of Section 869 of the Cri. P. C. held that there was nothing in that section or any other section of the Code to bar the Ct. from altering a judgment which had not been signed. In their view the signature on the judgment completed the judgment before the signature was appended to it the judgment was not complete. They relied upon the three decisions of the Allahabad H. C. to which I have already referred the decision of the Calcutta H. C. in Amodini Dasee v. Darsan Ghose, 38 Cal. 828: (13 Cr. L. J. 120). When the judgment of the C. J., Allahabad H. C. in Emperor v. Pragmadho Singh, 55 ALL 132; (A. I. R. (20) 1938 ALL 40: 34 Cr. L. J. 703) was brought to their notice, they held that the case was an authority for the proposition that the judgment which had been pronounced in the open Ct. was final, although not signed, unless until it is modified. It waa not an authority for the proposition that an unsigned judgment may not be properly altered or modified. In this case again, the provisions of Section 424 of the Cri. P. C., were not brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay shall run be in the name styles of us or of our heirs successor and shall be sealed with the seal of the said H. C. We are of the opinion that when any oral judgment is delivered, the order passed by the Ct. becomes final as soon as it is entered on the record, a writ issued in pursuance thereof under the seal of the Ct. as required by Clause 7 of the Letters Patent cannot thereafter be altered or reviewed. This view is supported by an unreported judgment of this Ct. in Queen-Empress v. Waman, 1893 Rat Un. Cr. C. 659. In delivering the judgment in the revision appln. in that case, the learned Judges expressed the view, that on the facts found by the Sessions Judge, a charge of which the accused was found guilty might have been framed therefore the conviction ought to be upheld. But it was immediately represented by Mr. Khare on behalf of the appect. that the point had not been argued therefore they decided to reserve that point for a further hearing. To that course, an objection was taken by the learned Govt. Pleader who relied upon Queen Empress v. C. P. Fox, 10 Bom. 176 (F.B.), which showed that an order made by the H. C. in revision could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the sentence awardable was not only transportation, but death. They therefore set the matter down for argument. But before doing so, they gave specific instructions to the office not to record the judgment not to draw up a final order until the point raised by the Govt. Pleader was argued decided. That case is, therefore, in conformity with the view which we take, viz. that the order became final when it was recorded a writ under the seal of the Ct. was issued. 14. Our attention was further invited to Sub-rule (bb) of Rule 12 of the High Court Appellate Bide Rules (corresponding to Rule 14 (c) of the 1950 ed.) which says that the Registrar may sign all judgments certify judgments orders to the lower Ct. in criminal cases. The Registrar is required to sign the judgments in order to certify their correctness to the lower Ct. This is only a ministerial act required to be performed in order to ensure that the lower Cts get correct copies of the judgments delivered by the H. C. The judgments are also signed by the Registrar after the Judges have approved their transcripts initialled them in token of their correctness. It could, therefore, hardly be suggested th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment is initialled, copies are sent to lower Cts. 15. Any other view is bound to lead to difficulties. A certain period of time must elapse between the order of the Gt. the preparation of the transcript of the judgment. The order is usually converted into a writ on the same day. If the argument that a judgment delivered in open Ct. can be altered or reviewed before the transcript comes to the Judge for initialling be correct, it is conceivable that there will be no finality to the judgment until after a very long time. If the counsel for the accused thinks of a new argument which he forgot to advance at the first hearing asks the Ct. to permit him to argue it merely because the transcript of the original judgment had not been initialled if the is entitled to do so, then the judgment passed in pursuance of such rehearing will also not be final until that judgment is again instialled by the Judges. Again, during that interval, the counsel may think of another argument may ask that the Ct. should review the second judgment before that judgment is initialled by the Judges, this process can go on ad infimtum. It could hardly be suggested that such a procedure wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aa in the present case, a new defence is sought to be taken a new argument sought to be advanced, we do not think it would be legitimate to review or alter the judgment on that ground. If such procedure was allowed, then it is conceivable that a judgment of this Ct. may not receive any finality it would be possible to have successive hearings of the same matter, depending upon the ingenuity of the counsel to discover fresh arguments during the interval that must necessarily elapae between the delivery of the oral judgment in open Ct. the production of the transcript of that judgment for the initials of the Judge We, therefore, think that this is not a case where we would be justified in altering or reviewing our earlier judgment, even if we had the power to do so. 18. As in our opinion we have no power of review as the judgment has already received finality, it is not necessary to examine what we might have done if we had such power if we had considered that this was a fit case for the exercise of that power. If the matter was open to review, the order that we might have passed would depend upon what our original order would have been, if the arguments now advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledge. This position was conceded by Mr. Amin. The question to be considered, therefore, is whether accused 2 5 were aware of the deception. This is a question of fact. But it was never contended that accused 2 5 had no knowledge of the deception. That position was not taken in the trial Ct. In the trial Ct. both the accused) stated, I deny the charge have nothing, further to add. The accused were then represented by an experienced advocate like Mr. Kanuga, even in the course of the arguments, before the learned Chief Presidency Mag. it was never contended that the accused had no knowledge of the deception. It was sought to be argued that it was never their intention to deceive the public or the authorities. The Chief Presidency Mag. accepted the contention that the accused never set themselves up as selling a product which was manufactured in England. In support of this, an argument was advanced that the formula was obtained from Anne French Laboratories, at 4, Old Bond Street, London, W. 1. The defence then taken up was therefore, not that accused 2 6 wore not aware of the false labels used on the goods, but that they were justified in using such labels because t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
