Back
1908 Supreme(Mad) 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In Re: Sankara Pillai alias Sankaranarayana Pillay
Versus
Decided On : 26.02.1908
The presiding officer who writes the judgment does not need to be the same person as the one required to date, sign, and pronounce it in open court, and irregularities in this regard may not necessarily prejudice the accused.
Headnote:
Judgment - Criminal Procedure Code - The court held that it was not necessary for the presiding officer who wrote the judgment to be the same person as the one required to date, sign, and pronounce it in open court. The court also found that even if it was an irregularity, it did not prejudice the accused. The conviction of the accused was deemed correct.
Fact of the Case:
The case was adjourned for judgment, and before the judgment was written, an application was made to call another witness for the defence. The judgment was written by one Magistrate but delivered and signed by another Magistrate in open court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the course adopted was not illegal or improper, and it did not prejudice the accused. The conviction of the accused was deemed correct.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the judgment delivery by a different Magistrate and the justification of the accused's conviction based on the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary for the presiding officer who wrote the judgment to be the same person as the one required to date, sign, and pronounce it in open court. The court also found that even if it was an irregularity, it did not prejudice the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
1. It appears from the explanation given and also from the diary that the case was adjourned for judgment on the 5th August. Afterwards, and before the judgment was written, an application was made to call another witness for the defence. No order was made upon that application and the judgment was written on the 14th. The Magistrate, before it was delivered, left, and another Magistrate was appointed in his place who read out his predecessors judgment and sentence and signed and dated it in open court on the 19th August. It is contended that this is illegal and that, inasmuch as the judgment and sentence were not delivered in open court by the Magistrate who heard the case and wrote the judgment, the accused should have been retried.
2. We are of opinion that the course adopted was not illegal or improper and that, under Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that the presiding officer of the court who wrote the judgment should be the same person as the presiding officer who is required to date, sign and pronounce it in open court Moreover, we are clearly of opinion that even if it was an irregularity it did not prejudice the accused. See High Court Proceedings, dated 28th August 1879, No. 1351, in 2 Weir p. 4387.
3. It was next argued that the evidence did not justify the conviction of the accused, but on this point there can be no doubt that the conviction was correct.
4. We dismiss the criminal revision petition.
