# required by section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

- **Citation:** C.L.No.51/VIII-h-27
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1952-04-07
- **Case number:** C.L.No.51/VIII-h-27
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/required-by-section-353-of-the-code-of-criminal-procedure-163930
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

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.