Page |1

Table of Contents

Table of Cases .................................................................... 2

Research Methodology........................................................ 3

Introduction ....................................................................... 4

Meaning of Judgment ......................................................... 4

Basic Components of Judgment ......................................... 5

Pronouncement of Judgment ........................................... 10

Judgment by Metropolitan Magistrate .............................. 14

Judgment in Summary Trials ........................................... 15

No Alteration of Judgment................................................ 17

Bibliography ..................................................................... 18

Books and Statutes: ...................................................... 18

Weblinks........................................................................ 18
 Page |2

Table of Cases

 Aeltemesh Rein v. State of Maharashtra ..................... 12

 Anil Rai v. State of Bihar .......................................... 13

 Budhia v. Chhotelal .................................................. 8

 Ramhit v. Emperor ................................................... 8

 Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra ............................... 10

 Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed ................ 16

 State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adshul ......... 9

 State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi .................... 8

 Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. ................................. 13

 Page |3

Research Methodology

The purpose of this project is to study the term ‘Judgment’

under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Various topics have been
discussed within this project concerning the main issue of the
meaning, nature and scope of the term ‘Judgment’. A descriptive
research methodology was used for this project. Various statutes
and books of renowned authors were looked into for the compilation
of the present study. Several websites were looked into for
understanding the concept of present study. Moreover various case
laws were referred to inorder to clear the law point at the present
time. Referring to all the primary and secondary material mentioned
above, the present study has been compiled and presented to the
concerned.
 Page |4

Introduction

The main functions of a criminal court are twofold:

(1) to decide as to the guilt or innocence of accused person tried

before it; and

(2) if such person is found guilty of any offence, to determine as to

the appropriate punishment or other method of dealing with him.

In every trial, irrespective of its nature, the court will have to

give a judgment in the case at the conclusion of the trial and that
decision is basically referred to as ‘Judgment’. Chapter XXVII of the
code of 1973 incorporates within itself the scope and ambit of the
term “Judgment” which stretches from S. 353 to 362 of the Code.

Meaning of Judgment

The judgment is the final decision of the court, given with

reasons, on the questions of the guilt or innocence of the accused
person. It includes the court’s decision as to the punishment the
guilty person has to suffer, or as to the conditions subject to which
the offender is to be released without being punished as such.

The word ‘Judgment’ means a judgment of conviction or

acquittal, and not an order of the discharge or the dismissal of a
complaint. The judgment must be completely written when it is
pronounced or explained. The law wisely requires that the reasons
for the decision shall accompany the decision and shall not be left to
be subsequently inserted or recorded.1

1
Woodroffe Sir John, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Law
Publishers (India) Private Limited, Allahabad, 1994, p. 1019
 Page |5

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary2, a Judgment is the

final reasoned decision of the Court as to the guilt or innocence of
the accused. Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment must
also contain an order requiring the accused to undergo punishment
or treatment.

Judgment means an expression of opinion of judge arrived at

after due consideration of the evidence and the arguments. Section
353-362 incorporated in chapter XXVII of the code of 1973 clearly
explains the term ‘Judgment”. Judgment is the final reasoned
decision of the Court as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment must also contain
an order requiring the accused to undergo punishment or
treatment. The main features of Judgment are given below:-

1. Judge has to apply his mind to the case.

2. Judgment needs to show that judge has applied his mind to
each and every fact and evidence of the case.
3. Once at conclusion, it is a final decision with respect to
conviction or acquittal of the accused.
4. Judgment must contain concise statement of the case, points
of determination, decision on these points and reasons for
such decisions.

Basic Components of Judgment

Basic components of a judgment to be delivered by the

competent authority have been incorporated u/s 354 of the code of
1973. It reads as follows:

2
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.
 Page |6

354. Language and contents of judgment.

(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;

(c) 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 at
liberty.

(2) When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under
which of two parts of the same section, of that Code the
offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and
pass judgment in the alternative.

(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with

death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state
the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of
sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.

(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with

imprisonment for a term of one year of more, but the court
imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than
three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such
sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the
 Page |7

rising of the court or unless the case was tried summarily

under the provisions of this Code.

(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence

shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.

(6) Every order under section 117 or sub-section (2) of

section 138 and every final order made under section 125,
section 145 or section 147 shall contain the point or points for
determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the
decision.3

1. According to the above stated section, one of the components

is that the Judgment must be in the language of the court as
notified by the state government. Every judgment shall be written
in the language of the court.4 S. 272 of the Code states that the
language of the court is determined by the State Government. The
word “shall” in the above provision indicates that it is mandatory.
The provision in Section 364 for the translation of the judgment-
“where the original is recorded in a language different from that of
the court”, would suggest that the judgment need not necessarily
be written in language of the court. Under the Criminal Procedure
Code of 1898, judgments were allowed to be written, and were in
fact written in English. Now under the above provision in the new
Code though it is obligatory to write judgments in the court-
language, the old practice of writing judgments in English almost
continues to remain unaffected.

2. Another component is that every judgment shall contain the

point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision.5

3
S. 354, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4
S. 354(1)(a), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5
S. 354(1)(b), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 Page |8

According to this component, while giving a judgment, the

Court shall decide the points for determination to finally dispose off
the proceedings. Court will give clear findings on those points. Court
will give reasons for those findings. Reasons can be taken from
evidence or from arguments submitted by the parties.

Usually the judgment in a criminal case should commence

with a statement of facts in respect of which the accused person is
charged. The judgment should indicate a careful analysis and
appraisement of the evidence while reaching the conclusions
regarding the proof of facts.6 It is the bounden duty of the
magistrate to produce judgment in a case coming before him which
is self-contained and which would show that he has intelligently
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the evidence led
therein by the respective parties and a criticism of this evidence
justifying the conclusion to which the magistrate feels persuaded to
come.7 The Supreme Court has also from time to time directed that
all orders passed by the courts should be speaking orders giving
reasons for the decision after noting the point at issue.8

3. Moving further S. 354(1)(c) of the Code of 1973 states that

every judgment shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the
section of the Indian Penal Code or other law under which, the
accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced.

According to this component, where the accused is convicted,

Court will mention the offence for which he is convicted and the law
under which offence is punishable, for example Indian Penal Code,
Prevention of Corruption Act, etc. When the conviction is under the
Indian Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or
under which of two parts of the same section of that Code the

6
Ramhit v. Emperor, 1934(35) Cr.L.J. 919 All
7
Budhia v. Chhotelal, AIR 1966 Raj 122
8
State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, 1984(1) SCC 596
 Page |9

offence falls, the court shall distinctly express the same, and pass
judgment in the alternative.9

4. S. 354(1)(d) of the Code of 1973 states that if it be a

judgment of acquittal, it shall state the offence of which the accused
is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.

When accused is acquitted, then Court shall state the offence

of which he is acquitted and shall also state that he be set free for
this offence. However, if the judgment of acquittal is given on the
ground that the accused was insane at the time at which he is
alleged to have committed the offence charged, the accused shall
not be set at liberty by the judgment of acquittal. For such cases
special provisions have been made in the Code.

5. According to S. 354(3) of the Code, when conviction is for an

offence punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment, then
judgment shall state reasons for that and incase of death sentence,
special reasons for such sentence should be given.

6. According to S. 354(4) of the Code, when any offence is

punishable with imprisonment for one year or more but the Court
has awarded a imprisonment of less than three months
imprisonment then Court has to record reasons but this rule is not
applicable if case is tried summarily or when accused is awarded
sentence till the rising of the Court.

7. According to S. 354(5) of the Code, when a person is

sentenced to death, the judgment shall direct that the person be
hanged by neck till death. Doctor will ascertain his death.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji

Adshul10, it was held that legislative intent behind S. 354(3) clearly

9
S. 354(2), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
10
AIR 2011 SC
 P a g e | 10

demonstrates the concern of legislature for taking away of human

life and imposing death penalty. Hence the major concern is for
dignity of human life.

In Sandesh v. State of Maharashtra11, it was held that despite

the paradigm shift in criminal jurisprudence, the ingredient relating
to criminal as well as circumstances of crime have to be considered
by the court at the time of delivery of judgment. The court would
have to determine whether accused is an ir-reformable anti social
element to the society. Consideration of these aspects should
automatically result in recording special reasons u/s 354(3) of the
code.

Pronouncement of Judgment

The judgment of the trial court represents the final episode in

the trial of the accused. The rules made by the Code in respect of
the delivery or pronouncement of the judgment are mainly intended
to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was.
Therefore until the judgment is ‘delivered’ or ‘pronounced’ in
compliance with such rules, it is strictly speaking no “judgment”,
and the judge can at such a stage change his mind and make
alterations in the judgment.12 Section 353 which deals with the
modes of pronouncing a judgment, reads as follows:

353. Judgment.

(1). The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of

original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court by the
presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial

11
2013 Cr.L.J. SC
12
Kelkar R. V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Comapany, Lucknow, 2012, p. 618
 P a g e | 11

or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to

the parties or their pleaders.

(a) By delivering the whole of the judgment: or

(b) By reading out the whole of the judgment: or

(c) 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.

(2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of sub-

section (I), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken
down in short hand, sign the transcript and every page
thereof as soon as it is made ready, and write on it the date
of the delivery of the judgment in open Court.

(3) Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read

out under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), as the
case may be, it shall be dated and signed by the presiding
officer in open court and if it is not written with his own hand,
every page of the judgment shall be signed by him.

(4) Where the judgment is pronounced in the manner

specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), he whole judgment
or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the
perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost.

(5) If the accused is in custody, he shall be brought up to

hear the judgment pronounced.

(6) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by

the court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except
where his personal attendance during the trial has been
dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is
acquitted:
 P a g e | 12

Provided that, where there are more accused than one, and
one or more of them do not attend the court on the date on
which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer
may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case,
pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence.

(7) No judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be

deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any
party or his pleader on the day or from the place notified for
the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve, or defect in
serving, on the parties or their pleaders, or any of them, the
notice of such day and place.

(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit in any

way the extent of the provisions of section 465.

The expression “after the termination of the trial” in Section

353(1) only means after the entire evidence both on behalf of the
prosecution and on behalf of the defense is recorded and arguments
are heard. It cannot however be said that the trial of a criminal case
comes to an end as soon as the evidence is recorded and that the
ultimate judgment pronounced in a case forms no part of a trial.13

Where the judgment is pronounced by delivering the whole of

it in open court under clause (a) of sub-section (1) above, the
presiding officer is required by sub-section (2) to cause it to be
taken down in short-hand and to sign the transcript and every page
thereof as soon as it is made ready and to write on it the date of the
delivery of the judgment in open court. Section 363 requires that
where the judgment is appealable by the accused, he is given a
certified copy of the judgment free of cost and without delay. But if
the supply of copy of the judgment is inordinately delayed because

13
Aeltemesh Rein v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cr.L.J. 858 Bom.
 P a g e | 13

of the delay in the preparation of the transcript as mentioned in sub

section (2), the consequence would inevitably be that the accused
would not be able to file an appeal and obtain an order from the
appellate court for his release on bail within a reasonable time even
though it be a fit case for his release on bail. Secondly another
result of the above delay would be that a convicted person who is
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a short period would
undergo the entire sentence of imprisonment by the time the copy
of the judgment is supplied to him. The right of appeal for such a
convicted person would be thus rendered illusory though he may
have a good arguable case in appeal. This would indicate the
necessity of speedy and expeditious transcription when the
judgment is delivered in open court under clause (a) of sub-section
(1).

The Supreme Court has rightly disapproved the undesirable

practice of some judges delivering judgments after several months
since completion of hearing. The court has correctly perceived it to
be a violation of the speedy Trial, a right enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution as held in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar14. The Court has
also issued various guidelines in this particular case to be followed
by the Courts in India till Parliament make measures to deal with
the problem of delayed delivery of judgment.

Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out

under clause (b) or clause (c)of sub-section (1), it shall be dated
and signed by the presiding officer in open Court. However any
other defect or irregularity in such dating and signing can be cured
by Section 465. In Surendra Singh v. State of U.P.15, SC observed
that small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the
mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must

14
2001 SCC (Cr) 1009
15
AIR 1954 SC 194
 P a g e | 14

be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and

conjecture nor can it be vague All the rest—the manner in which it
is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the
signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainty
about its content and matter—can be cured; but not the hard core,
namely, the formal intimation of the decision and its contents
formally declared in a judicial way in open court.

Furthermore, it is quite evident from sub-sections (5) and (6)

that it is the duty of the trial court to secure the attendance of the
accused in court at the time of delivering a judgment of conviction
by which the accused is sentenced to a substantive sentence of
imprisonment. However, in order to avoid undue delay in the
disposal of the case in which there are two or more accused persons
the court can pronounce the judgment in the absence of any of the
accused persons in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to
sub-section (6).

Judgment by Metropolitan Magistrate

Instead of recording the judgments in usual manner provided

by S. 354, the judgments given by metropolitan magistrates are
required to be recorded in specified abridged forms mentioned u/s
355 of the Code which reads as follows:

355. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Judgment.

Instead of recording a judgment in the manner hereinbefore

provided, a Metropolitan Magistrate shall record the following
particulars, namely.

(a) The serial number of the case;

 P a g e | 15

(b) The date of the commission of the offence;

(c) The name of the complainant (if any);

(d) The name of the accused person, and his parentage and
residence:

(e) The offence complained of or proved,

(f) The plea of the accused and his examination (if any)

(g) The final order;

(h) The date of such order;

(i) In all cases in which an appeal lies from the final order
either under section 373 or under sub-section (3) of section
374, a brief statement of the reasons for the decision.

S. 373 referred to above in clause (i) deals with appeal from

orders requiring security or refusal to accept or rejecting surety for
keeping peace or good behaviour and Section 374(3) inter alia deals
with appeals by persons convicted on trial held by a metropolitan
magistrate. In other words, according to clause (i) above, a
metropolitan magistrate is required to give a brief statement of the
reasons for his decision in all cases in which an appeal lies.

Judgment in Summary Trials

Judgments in summary trials are not required to be recorded

in the manner mentioned in S. 354. The record and judgment in
summary trials must be in the specified abridged form as provided
by S. 263-265 of the Code. According to S. 263, in every case tried
 P a g e | 16

summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form as the State

Government may direct, the following particulars:

(a) The serial number of the case;

(b) The date of the commission of the offence;

(c) The date of the report of complaint;

(d) The name of the complainant (if any);

(e) The name, parentage and residence of the accused;

(f) The offence complained of and the offence (if any) proved,
and in cases coming under clause (ii), clause (iii) or clause
(iv) of sub-section (1) of section 260, the value of the
property in respect of which the offence has been committed;

(g) The plea of the accused and his examination (if any);

(h) The finding;

(i) The sentence or other final order;

(j) The date on which proceedings terminated.16

According to S. 264, in every case tried summarily in which

the accused does not plead guilty, the magistrate shall record the
substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief
statement of the reasons for the finding shall be given. The
judgment should be such as to enable a court of appeal or revision
to know from its perusal, the nature of the case, the substance of
the evidence and the reasons for the finding so that such courts
might be in a position to examine the correctness or proprietary or
illegality of such finding.17

16
S. 263, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
17
Sankaran Unni Vasudevan Unni v. Rasheed, 1980 Cr.L.J. 304 Ker.
 P a g e | 17

No Alteration of Judgment

S. 362 of the code states that no court should alter its

judgment once disposed off. It reads as follows:

362. Court not to alter judgment.

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law

for the time being in force, no court when it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall after or
review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical
error.

Section 362 is not restricted to the judgments of the trial

court alone. The section is general in its application and prohibits all
courts from altering or reviewing their judgment once it had been
signed. It has been opined that taking cognizance is a final order for
the purposes of Section 362. Finality attaches to a judgment or final
order disposed of a case. A judgment or a final order must be
clearly distinguished from an interlocutory order. It is obvious that
Section 362 only precludes alteration of final judgment and keeps
intact the power of a court to pass different orders from stage to
stage in so far as an interim matter is concerned. The words “save
as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time
being in force” refer to those provisions only where the court has
been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or
review its judgment.
 P a g e | 18

Bibliography

Books and Statutes:

 Woodroffe Sir John, Commentaries on Code of Criminal

Procedure, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Law Publishers (India) Private
Limited, Allahabad, 1994.

 Sen, D. N., The Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. I, Premier

Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2004.

 Batuk Lal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd Ed., Central Law

Agency, Allahabad, 2010.

 Kelkar R. V., Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed., Eastern Book

Comapany, Lucknow, 2012.

 Misra S. N., The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 12th Ed.,

Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 2005.

 Universal’s Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Co.,

New Delhi, 2013.

Weblinks:

 http://law.chdfirms.com/crpc/chapter_27.php
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_
1973#Judgement

 http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/crpc/the-code-of-
criminal-procedure-1973-crpc-2nd-page.html#353_Judgment

 http://hanumant.com/CrPC-Unit2-Judgment-Overview.html