2017 Supreme(SC) 21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, JJ.
Ajay Singh and Anr. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 32-33 of 2017 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7694-7695 of 2016)
Decided On : 06-01-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Concept of expediency and fair trial is applicable to the accused as well as to the victim.
In absence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the accused may be acquitted.
Judgment once pronounced cannot be altered.
Pronouncing just the result without any judgment or with incomplete and unsigned judgment is grossly illegal.
When there is only an order sheet pronouncing the result without any judgment, trial should be treated as pending.
Power of superintendence under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only. Also includes power of judicial review and can be exercised suo motu.

Headnote:(a) Criminal jurisprudence – Concept of expediency and fair trial – Applicable to the accused as well as to the victim. (Para 1, 27)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 227 and 235 – Requirement – Sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused – Absence – Accused may be acquitted. (Para 9)

       (2010) 2 SCC 398 – Relied upon

       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 353, 362 and 482 – Judgment once pronounced – Cannot be altered. (Para 15)

       (1981) 1 SCC 500 – Relied upon

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section, 353 and 364 – Judgment not delivered in open court – Only result (acquittal) announced – Entire judgment may not be pronounced in open court and only operative portion may be read out – Instantly only result announced – No judgment available on record – A judgment not signed and dated and not pronounced in open court is no judgment – Incomplete and unsigned judgment is no judgment – Such act is grossly illegal. (Para 17)

       (1984) 1 SCC 596 – Relied upon

       AIR 1960 Mad 507 – Cited with approval

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 353 – No judgment in terms of section 353 pronounced – Trial to be treated as pending. (Para 19)

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Power of superintendence – Not confined to administrative superintendence only – Also includes power of judicial review – Can be exercised suo motu. (Para 20, 21)

       (1997) 5 SCC 76 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 227 and section 407, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – No judgment on record – Order of acquittal rightly quashed by High Court – In absence of a judgment and thereby the trial being pending, High Court was in its rights to transfer the case. (Para 25)

       (1995) 4 SCC 392 – Relied upon

       (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The marriage between the appellant No. 1 and Ruby Singh, the deceased, was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 22.06.1997. She committed suicide at her matrimonial home on 01.12.1998. Kameshwar Pratap lodged FIR No. 194/98 at Police Station Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja against Ajay Singh (husband), Sureshwar Singh (father-in-law), Dhanwanti Devi (mother-in-law) and Kiran Singh (sister-in-law) for offences punishable under Section 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences.

       Trial Judge passed an order in the order sheet that recorded that the accused persons had been acquitted as per the judgment separately typed, signed and dated.

       A member of the State Bar Council sent a complaint to the Registry of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur alleging that learned trial judge had acquitted the accused persons but no judgment had been rendered.

       The District and Sessions Judge submitted the report to the High Court stating that no judgments were found in the records of such cases. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court of the High Court when a resolution was passed placing the concerned trial judge under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. At the same time, the Full Court took the decision to transfer the cases in question from the concerned trial judge to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal.

       After the decision was taken for transferring the cases by the Full Court for rehearing, three writ petitions were filed by the accused persons.

       The controversy centers around two issues, namely, whether the learned trial judge had really pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 31.10.2007 and whether the High Court could have in exercise of its administrative power treated the trial as pending and transferred the same from the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for rehearing and disposal.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       The High Court by rectifying the grave error has acted in furtherance of the cause of justice.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.