Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 498 of 1967, decided on 17th April 1968.

S. 367(1)‑Judg ment‑Omission to date and sign judgment in open Court at time of pronouncement‑Illegality vitiating judgment.

S. 367 Judg ment‑Delay‑Unreasonable delay in pronouncement, held, open to serious objection‑Magistrate fixing date for judgment 22 days ahead of hearing arguments‑Pronouncement, however, adjourned on two subsequent dates and finally written after 3 months of hearing arguments‑Procedure adopted, held, open to serious objection and strongly condemned.

Md. Anwarul Haq for Petitioner.

Nemo for the Opposite‑Party.

This application in revision is directed against the order of conviction of the accused petitioners passed by Mr. A. K. M. Fazlul Haq, Magistrate, 1st Class, Chittagong.

2. The case arose out of allegation by the complainant, a clerk of E. P. Railway at Chittagong that the petitioners and others assaulted him with wooden sandles and sticks and by giving kicks and blows causing him injuries, which were examined by a doctor.

3. The only ground pressed in this revision is that the learned Magistrate wrote and signed the judgment on 29‑10‑1966 but delivered it on 14‑11‑1966 and that this has vitiated the judg ment. It appears from the records that arguments on behalf of both the parties were heard on 4‑7‑66 and 26‑6‑66 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On 26‑7‑66 judgment was not ready and another date was fixed, that is 2‑9‑66 for judgment. On that date also judgment was not ready. The next date fixed for delivery of judgment was 29‑10‑66. On that date one of the accused was absent and 14‑11‑66 was fixed for judgment and it was on 14‑11‑66 that the judgment was eventually delivered. Section 367, subsection (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the judgment of a criminal court shall be dated and signed by the Presiding Officer in open Court at the time of pronouncing it. In the instant case the judgment was delivered on 14‑11‑66, but it appears to have been signed by the Magistrate on 29‑10‑66. There would have been no infringement of law had the judgment been written on 29‑10‑66 but not signed by the Magistrate on that date and had it been signed on 14‑11‑66, the actual date of pronouncement of the judgment. It is quite clear in this case that the judgment was not signed and dated by the learned Magistrate in open Court on the date of its delivery. The judgment is vitiated by this illegality and it is liable to be set aside together with the order of conviction and sentence. Hence the Rule is made absolute.

4. It is to be noted that the procedure adopted in this case by the learned Magistrate Mr. A. K. M. Fazlul Haq is open to serious objection. There was no reason for not delivering the judgment within a week of hearing arguments. The first date for judgment was fixed 22 days ahead and then pronouncement of the Judgment was adjourned on two other dates till at last it appears to have been written on 29‑10‑66 more than 3 months after hearing of the arguments. It was simple case under sections 323 and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code and there was no justification whatsoever for such delay in delivery of judgment. The delay on the part of the learned Magistrate in pronouncing his judgment in this simple case cannot be too strongly condemned.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of East Pakistan.

Rule made absolute.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.