Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- Can a convicted person be said to be lawfully imprisoned if at the time of his conviction the trial judge dictates the judgment but does not sign the same because of its having not been transcribed is one of the questions which arises for determination in two petitions Nos. 1522 and 1523 of 1973 which have been sent from jail by Iqbal Ismail Sodawala for issuing a writ of hebeas corpus. The facts giving rise to those two petitions are substantially the same and, therefore, it may be necessary to deal with only one of them. The petitioner has also filed petition No. 1637 of 1973 questioning the validity of the order of the Registrar of the Bombay High Court declining to place before the Court a petition received by post from the petitioner unless it was accompanied by a copy of the register of petition duly filled in by the Jail Superintendent. This judgment would dispose of all the three petitions.

2. The petitioner was tried in the Court of Shri. P. K. Gupte, Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay for offences under Sections 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was found guilty of those offences and was sentenced as per judgment dated May 12, 1972 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The petitioner after his conviction was for some time kept in Aurangabad jail and was thereafter transferred to Nagpur Central Prison. He is now undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in that prison. According to the petitioner, he asked for the copy of the judgment at the time it was pronounced, but he was informed that the same would be sent to him 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 the petitioner that they had sent a number of communications and despite that, copy of the judgment was not yet available. The petitioner thereupon sent petition No. 1523 of 1973 from jail on January 12 1973 and petition No. 1522 on January 22, 1973.

3. In support of his prayer for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner states that the judgment was not pronounced by the Sessions Judge and that only the Clerk of the court apprised him of the decision in the case. No judgment, it is stated, could be pronounced till it was complete. It is further the case of the petitioner that he could not be detained for a period of seven months without being supplied a copy of the judgment.

4. Shri Gupte, to whom notice of the petition was sent, has stated that 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 is further stated that the petitioner could not be immediately supplied with a copy of the judgment as the same had to be transcribed from shorthand in the office.

5. Affidavit of Shri Baburao Madhorao Karajgikar, Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison has been filed in opposition to the petition. It is mentioned in the affidavit that a copy of the requisite judgment was received by the jail authorities on February 19, 1973 and the same was immediately handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on May 4, 1973 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on September 13, 1973.

6. Mr. Dhingra who has argued the case amicus curiae has at the outset referred to the allegation of the petitioner that the judgment in the case under Section 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was not pronounced the Sessions Judge but by his Sheristedar. It is urged that the procedure adopted in this respect by the learned Sessions Judge was not in accordance with law. We are not impressed by this submission. The report of Shri Gupte shows that he dictated the judgment in the case against the petitioner in open Court. The judgment included, as it must, the concluding part relating to the conviction