Mahavir Singh - (1.) THIS is a revision by Pritam against the dismissal of his appeal against his conviction under Section 394 IPC and a sentence of three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo a further R. I. for three months.
(2.) THIS revision is being pressed only on a point of law. It is pointed out that in this case two judgments were given by the learned Sessions Judge. One was given on 13-6-1979. By this judgment described as a operative portion of the order and after mentioning the order of the trial court and also mentioning having heard the parties in the appeal, he had observed that there was no merit in the same and that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. He then mentioned as follows :- "Therefore this operation of the judgment is being pronounced today. Detailed judgment with reasons shall be given later on. The appeal is dismissed. Let the accused be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence." Then there is again an endorsement "Operative portion of the judgment signed, dated and pronounced in open court today." The other judgment was given on 18-6-1979. It is described simply as judgment. It is in the ordinary form of the appellate judgment giving all the facts and reasons. At the end he mentioned as below :- "This appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The operative portion of the judgment has already been pronounced by me on 13-6-1979. Now this detailed judgment with detailed reasons is being given. Let the parties' counsel be informed." The contention of the learned counsel f or the applicant is that under law there could be only one judgment and not two in a case and therefore, the earlier judgment described to be as operative part of the judgment was the judgment in the eye of law. On that date it was pronounced and parties were intimated and warrant was prepared for the appellant for serving out the sentence, but this judgment was invalid being against the mandatory provisions of Section 354 CrPC as it did not contain reasons for dismissal of the appeal. The judgment dated 18-6-1979 in which reasons were given, could not be a part of this judgment as no court is empowered to add anything after giving the judgment. Rather the court is so prohibited by Section 362 CrPC.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with these submissions, the relevant part of law relating to judgment may be pointed out. Section 353 CrPC deals with the judgment. It deals with the manner in which, the judgment is to be pronounced. Section 354 deals with the language and the contents of the judgment. Section 353 provides the following three modes of pronouncement of the judgment :- (a) By delivering the whole of the judgment; (b) By reading out the whole of the judgment; (c) by reading out the operative pari! of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader. Manner (a) implies that the judgment is being dictated in open court. Sub-section (2) of Section 353 is also relevant in this regard. It provides that where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down, in short-hand, sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as id is made ready, and write on it the date of delivery of the judgment in open court.;