# Attar Singh v. Ex.Officer, Municipal Board Kosi Kalan, District Mathura & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/attar-singh-v-ex-officer-municipal-board-kosi-kalan-district-mathura-others-39363
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

140 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
payment of salary to the extent of 50% since the amount would be
paid to the petitioner in a lumpsum.
7.
Mr. A.R. Dubey on the other contends that the petitioner has
suffered the agony of dispensing with service and has suffered
enormously in respect of financial stringency on account of non
payment of salary continuously for a long period and the social
humiliation on account of such dispensation of service for which he
claims compensation for the injury suffered by the petitioner
alongwith interest payable on the salary due.

8.
On this question both of them argued at length. After hearing
both the counsel and balancing the situation, it seem that justice
would be served if the petitioner is awarded full back wages for the
period till the date of superannuation alongwith all other service
benefits without any compensation or interest as the case may be.

9.
In the circumstances, it is hereby declared that the petitioner
shall be deemed to be in service and shall retire on attainment of
superannuation with all service benefits. The respondents shall
ensure payment of back wages as well as retirement benefits as
admissible in law to the petitioner as early as possible preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. Let writ of mandamus do accordingly issue.

10.
The writ petitioner is, therefore, disposed of. However, there
will be no order as to costs.

11.
Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned
counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

8GDL 1DUDLQ
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

1999
------
Attar Singh
 Vs.
Ex.Officer,
Municipal Board
Kosi Kalan,
District Mathura
& others
------
D.K. Seth , J.

1999
------
July, 7
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
141
&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
 6UL SUDNEDKNDU 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH RSSRVLWH SDUWLHV
 $*$

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH 6V DQG -XGJHPHQW LQ
DSSHDO E\ D &ULPLQDO &RXUW RI RULJLQDO -XULVGLFWLRQ RU 6HVVLRQ -XGJH
± 2UDO SURQRXQFHPHQW RI RSHUDWLYH SDUW EHIRUH SURFHHGLQJ WR ZULWH
WKH VDPH KHOG LOOHJDO
+HOG ±
$ FRPELQHG UHDGLQJ RI VHFWLRQV DQG &U3& VKRZV WKDW D
&ULPLQDO &RXUW RI RULJLQDO MXULVGLFWLRQ RU D OHDUQHG 6HVVLRQ -XGJH
ZKLOH GHOLYHULQJ
MXGJHPHQW LQ DQ DSSHDO FDQQRW ILUVW SURQRXQFH
WKH RSHUDWLYH SDUW RI WKH RUGHU DQG WKHUHDIWHU SURFHHG WR ZULWH WKH
MXGJHPHQW
(LWKHU WKH ZKROH RI MXGJHPHQW KDV WR EH GHOLYHUHG LQ
FRXUW E\ ZULWLQJ RU GLFWDWLQJ WKH MXGJHPHQW RU D SUHYLRXVO\ ZULWWHQ
MXGJHPHQW
FDQ
EH
SURQRXQFHG
E\
UHDGLQJ
RXW
WKH
ZKROH
MXGJHPHQW RU UHDGLQJ RXW WKH RSHUDWLYH SDUW RI WKH MXGJHPHQW DQG
WKHUHDIWHU VLJQLQJ HYHU\ SDJH RI WKH MXGJHPHQW DQG JLYLQJ GDWH RI
SURQRXQFHPHQW WKHUHRI 7KH MXGJHPHQW PXVW FRQWDLQ WKH SRLQW RU
SRLQWV IRU GHWHUPLQDWLRQ WKH GHFLVLRQ WKHUHRQ DQG WKH UHDVRQV IRU
WKH GHFLVLRQ
:KDW WKH OHDUQHG 6HVVLRQV -XGJH VHHPV WR KDYH GRQH LQ WKH
SUHVHQW FDVH ZDV WR ILUVW SURQRXQFH WKH RSHUDWLYH SDUW RI WKH
MXGJHPHQW DQG WKHUHDIWHU SURFHHGHG WR GLFWDWH WKH MXGJHPHQW WR
KLV VWHQRJUDSKHU
7KLV ZDV FOHDUO\ FRQWUDU\ WR WKH PDQGDWH RI
VHFWLRQV DQG &U 3& DQG DV VXFK WKH SURFHGXUH IROORZHG
E\ KLP ZDV LOOHJDO3DUD

Case referred :
A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 194.

By the Court

1.
This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the
complainant praying that further proceedings in S.T. No. 388 of 1987
be stayed and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi be
restrained from delivering the judgement in the aforesaid case.

2.
Udai Narain, the complainant applicant filed a criminal
complaint against the accused respondents no. 2 to 5 under sections
395, 397 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and summoned the accused. In due course, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions where the statement of
complainant and some other witnesses was recorded. It appears that
the record of case was burnt in a fire, which broke out in the office
1999
------
Udai Narain
 Vs.
State of U.P. &
others
------
G.P. Mathur , J.
142 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
and an order, was passed on 5.8.1989 to reconstruct the record. On
10.8.1989, the prosecution as well as the defence filed certain papers
which were taken on record and 16.8.1989 was fixed for recording
statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on
4.10.1989 the statement of some of the accused was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. The order sheet of 11.12.1989 read as follows:-

"I have heard the complainant`s private counsel and have thoroughly
examined the record. Judgement of acquittal orally pronounced in
open court at about 3.25 p.m."

3.
There is another order sheet of the same date i.e. 11.12.1989
which has been written in Hindi wherein it is mentioned that
subsequent to the pronouncement of order of acquittal, an application
was moved by the complainant at about 4.00 p.m. for transferring the
case to some other court. It is also mentioned in the order sheet that
a part of the judgement had been dictated by the learned Sessions
judge but on account of filing of transfer application by the
complainant , he refrained from giving any further dictation in order
to complete the judgement. Thereafter several dates were fixed for
giving opportunity to the complainant to file stay order,. On
14.3.1900, the record of the trail court was summoned by this Court
and consequently no further proceeding took place before the
learned IV Additional Sessions Judge.

 4.
I have heard Shri Prabhakar Singh for the complainantapplicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri V.Singh for the
accused opposite parties.

5.
The order sheet dated 11.12.1989 shows that the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge first orally pronounced the order
acquitting the accused opposite parties and thereafter proceeded to
dictate the judgement which was also not completed on account of
filing of the transfer application by the complainant. The record of
the trial court does not contain even that part of the judgement,
which is said to have been orally dictated in court by the learned
Sessions Judge.

6.
The code of Criminal Procedure contains a complete chapter
on judgement and that is Chapter XXVII. Section 354 deals with
language and contents of judgement and section 353 Cr.P.C. lays
down the procedure for pronouncing a judgement. Sub-section (1)
1999
------
Udai Narain
 Vs.
State of U.P. &
others
------
G.P. Mathur , J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
143
of section 354 and sub-section (1) to (3) of section 353 read as
under:-

"354. Language and contents of judgement.- (1) Except as otherwise
expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in
Section 353,-

(a)
shall be written in the language of the Court:
(b)
shall contain the point or points for determination, the
decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
©
shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the
section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law
under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to
which he is sentenced;
(d)
if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence
of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set a
liberty.

353. Judgment:- The judgment in every trial in any Criminal a
Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open
court by the presiding officer immediately after the
termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which
notice shall be given to the parties or their pleladers,-

(a)
by delivering the whole of the judgment; or
(b)
by reading out the whole of the judgment; or
©
by reading out the operative part of the
judgment and explaining the substance of the
judgment in a language which is understood by the
accused or his pleader.

7.
A perusal of section 354 would show that the judgement in
every trial in any criminal Court of Original Jurisdiction shall
contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon
and the reasons for the decision. In case of conviction the judgment
shall specify the offence or section of the I.P.C. or other law under
which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is
sentenced. In case of acquittal the judgment shall state the offence of
which the accused is acquitted. Section 384 gives power to the
Appellate court to dismiss an appeal summarily. However subsection (3) of this section provides that where the Appellate Court
dismissing an appeal under this section is a Court of Sessions or the
1999
------
Udai Narain
 Vs.
State of U.P. &
others
------
G.P. Mathur , J.
144 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so.
Section 387 provides that the rules contained in Chapter XXVII as
to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall
apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment in appeal of a
Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, a
judgment in an appeal given by a court of Session must contain
point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision. That apart, the pronouncement of
judgement by the court of Sessions in an appeal has to be done in a
manner laid down under section 353 Cr.P.C.

8.
The word "judgment" is not defined in the Code. It is a word
of general import and normally it means judicial determination or
decision of a court. What is the precise meaning of the word
judgement as used in the Code came up for consideration in
Surendra Singh and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954
SC 194 and it was explained in following words:-

"A judgment is the final decision of the Court intimated to the
parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or
"deliverly" in open court. It is a judicial act which must be
performed in a judicial way,. The decision which is so pronounced
or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the Court as it is at
the time of pronouncement. This is the first judicial act touching the
judgment which the Court performs after the hearing. Everything
else up till then is done out of court and is not intended to be the
operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the
judgment in motion. The final operative act is that which is formally
declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative
decision of the Court. The is what constitutes the " judgment"."

9.
A combined reading of sections 353 and 354 Cr.P.C. shows
that a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction or a learned Session
Judge while delivering judgment in an appeal cannot first pronounce
the operative part of the order and thereafter proceed to write the
judgment. Either the whole of judgment has to be delivdered in
court by writing or dictating the judgment or a previously written
judgment can be pronounced by reading out the whole judgmebnt or
reading out the operative part of the judgment and thereafter signing
every page of the judgment and giving date of pronouncement
thereof. The judgment must contain the point or points for
determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

1999
------
Udai Narain
 Vs.
State of U.P. &
others
------
G.P. Mathur , J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
145

10.
What the learned Sessions Judge seems to have done in the
present case was to first pronounce the operative part of the
judgment and thereafter proceeded to dictate the judgment to his
stenographer. This was clearly contrary to the mandate of sections
353 and 354 Cr.P.C. and, as such, the procedure followed by him
was illegal. As mentioned earlier, the record of the case does not
contain the judgment or even a part thereof, reference of which is
mentioned in the order sheet dated 11.12.1989. In absence of any
judgment on record the final decision in the case has snot been
rendered and the case has not yet concluded. In order to conclude
the case, the judgment has to be pronounced in accordance with
section 353 Cr.P.C.

11.
In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The oral pronouncement of judgment of acquittal as recorded in the
order sheet dated 11.12.1989 is set aside. The learned Sessions
Judge is directed to conclude the session's trial jby pronouncing
judgment in accordance with lalw after hearing counsel for the
parties. It will be open to the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi,
either to hear the case himself or to asign it to some other Additional
Sessions Judge in his Sessions division.

12.
Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court as
early as possible.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1'5$ 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1'5$ 6,1*+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0DVXU\DGLQ DQG RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6SHFLDO -XGJH (FRQRPLF 2IIHQFHV
$OODKDEDG DQG RWKHUV
«2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL '& 6D[HQD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6&
1999
------
Udai Narain
 Vs.
State of U.P. &
others
------
G.P. Mathur , J.
1999
------
July, 6