# designations below their initials on judgments

- **Citation:** C.L.No.38/VII-b-40
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1968-04-24
- **Case number:** C.L.No.38/VII-b-40
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/designations-below-their-initials-on-judgments-163927
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

477
C.L.No.38/VII-b-40 dated 24th April, 1968
Presiding officers of Sessions Courts should give their full and proper
designations below their initials on judgments.
 Orders passed in chambers
G.L.No.6/46 dated 15th February, 1939
Interlocutory orders passed by presiding officers in chambers are sometimes not
communicated to parties or their pleaders and this result in their approaching the office
for information about such orders passed in their absence and opens the door to
corruption.

Whenever any judicial orders are passed in chambers, they should invariably be
communicated to the parties or their pleaders and their signatures obtained on the order
sheet or elsewhere where the orders are recorded.
 Judgment in Hindi
C.L.No.60/X-e-5 dated 23rd April, 1974

Under section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in super session
of all existing notifications in this regard, the language of courts other than the High
Court has been determined as follows:
(1) In respect of judgments and orders passed or made by a court of Magistrate in all
cases in which a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year can
be passed in Hindi (in Devnagri Script);
(2) In respect of judgments and orders passed or made by any court in any case other
than a case referred to in para (i) above- in Hindi (in Devnagri Script) and
English;
(3) In respect of all proceedings other than judgments and orders in any court- in
Hindi (in Devnagri Script).
Injuries to be reproduced
C.L.No. 13/VIb-47 dated 3rd March, 1982
The presiding officers of the criminal courts should invariably reproduce in their
judgments the injuries from the injury reports of the injured persons.
(ii)
 Reservation of
G.L.No. 5176/167-185 dated 26th November, 1925

The court does not desire to lay down any rigid rule but in the great majority of
cases in Munsifs' courts and in a considerable proportion of cases in Civil Judges' courts
it should be possible to deliver judgment either on the same day on which the arguments
are concluded or on the next following day. No officer should ever have more than two or
at most three judgments reserved at the same time. When more than two judgments have
been reserved, an officer should not ordinarily take up another case until he has written
them.
478
C.L.No.51/VIII-h-27 dated 7th April, 1952

Whenever judgment is not delivered immediately after the termination of the trial
and is reserved and delivered on a subsequent date previous notice of the date and time of
the delivery of the judgement should invariably be given to the parties or their counsel as
required by section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii)
Delay in delivery of judgments
C.L.No.106/VIII-b-132 dated 30th August, 1971
Following instructions should strictly be followed while submitting quarterly
return as prescribed in rule 418 of the General Rules (Civil) 1957:
(1) Where argument is heard day after day, or arguments are heard afresh, cases in
which judgments are delivered more than one month after the close of evidence,
have to be entered in the quarterly return though no explanation need be furnished
in the last column of the said return if the judgment is pronounced within one
month of the commencement of argument, that is within one month of the first
date on which the arguments were heard.
(2) On receipt of the quarterly return, the District Judge should scrutinize all cases in
which judgment is delivered more than one month after the conclusion of
arguments and satisfy himself that there was no unnecessary delay in the
conclusion of the arguments or that arguments were heard afresh for some valid
reason.
(3) While scrutinizing the quarterly statement, the District Judge, should also
scrutinize those cases where it appears that there has been unreasonable time lag
between the close of evidence and the conclusion of arguments. In such cases, he
can note his comments and, if necessary, obtain the explanation of the officer
also.
(iv)
Judgments by Sessions Judges
C.L.No.12/74 dated 12th February, 1974

Sessions Judges should give their judgments independently without any
apprehension in their mind of its being upheld or reversed by the Court in appeal.
C.L.No.C-4/88 dated 14th January, 1988

Attention of all the judicial officers is drawn to the Court's judgment in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4404 of 1987, S.K.Bhatt, Civil Judge, versus II
Additional District Judge and others (1987 A.L.R. 368) regarding maintenance of dignity,
decorum and restraint in passing strictures while writing judgment.
C.L.No.96/VII b-47 dated 14th September, 1978
The Sessions Judges are directed to henceforth mention specifically whether or
not the persons convicted were on bail during their trial in the operative portion of their
judgements.