Brij Mohan Lall, J. - (1.) This appln. arises in the following circumstances, viz :
(2.) A criminal revn. was filed by the appct. & It came up before the late Hon. Seth J. He heard the revn. & dismissed it by his order dated 14-9-50. He remarked in the course of his order that an important question of law had been raised but he was not disposed to interfere with the proceedings that were going on in the Ct. below "at this stage of the case". It seems that he had questioned the learned counsel whether the charge had been framed in the case & the answer given to him by the learned counsel was in the affirmative.
(3.) Sometime after the dismissal of that revn. the learned counsel presented an appln. Under Section 561A, Cr. P. C. stating that the charge had, in fact, not been framed till then & that he had, on account of defective instructions, made an incorrect statement before the Ct. & that incorrect statement had influenced the judgment. He prayed that the Ct. might review its order. This appln. was also put up before the late Hon. Seth J. who heard the arguments & after full hearing dictated a judgment on 22-1-51 rejecting the appln. On 26-1-51 Seth J. died before signing the transcript of the judgment. The Order Sheet also does not bear his signature; but it has not been disputed that the transcript of the judgment which is on the record correctly reproduces the order dictated by the late Hon. Seth J. in open Ct. After the death of Hon. Seth J., Office put up the case again for orders obviously under the impression that the unsigned judgment was not a judgment in law. When the matter came up before me I ordered notice to issue. Later on, the office put up another note stating that the judgment delivered in open Ct. by the late Hon. J. was a valid judgment, notwithstanding the fact that it had not been signed or initialled by him. Reference was made in the office note to the case of 'Emperor v. Prag Madho Singh', A. I. R. (20) 1933 All. 40. In that case the late Hon. L. M. Banerji J. had died after dictating several judgments in open Ct. but before signing them. The matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders & he was of the opinion that the judgments dictated in open Ct. were valid judgments, even in the absence of signatures on the fair copies. He pointed out that there was nothing in the Cr. P. C. requiring a Judge to affix his signature on the judgment. This is exactly the contention which is now raised by the Asst. Govt. Advocate. He contended that there is no case pending which may be dealt with by me now & that the appln. presented by the appct. Under Section 561A Cri. P. C. was effectively & completely disposed of by the late Hon. Seth J. by his order dated 22-1-51.;