1986 P Cr (PLP)

Judgment. (1) Every such judgment shall, Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, be written by the presiding officer of the Court (or from the dictation of such presiding officer) in the language of the Court or in English, and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and shall be, dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court at the time or pronouncing it (and where it is not written by the Presiding Officer with his own hand, every page of such judgment shall be signed, by him. This subsection requires, on a plain reading thereof, that the judgment must contain the points for the decision. The object of this provision is that the trial Court should consider the case before it in all its bearings and after such consideration arrive at a clear‑cut conclusion on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gambat has ignored the mandatory provisions of section 367(1), Cr.P.C. The judgment did not show as to what were the points for determination nor that any decision was given by the learned trial Court on the said points. After giving the prosecution story and the defence version the learned Assistant Sessions Judge as gone on reproducing the evidence of all the witnesses in an unnecessary details and at certain places in the first form. The judgment is no doubt very lengthy and runs in as many as 35 typed pages and learned Assistant Sessions Judge must have worked hard on writing the same, but from its perusal it is quite clear that he has neither brought out the points for determination which were the necessary ingredients which the prosecution ought to have proved nor expressed his clear-cut decisions on those points. Time and again this Court has been impressing upon the subordinate Judges to adhere. In a case Emperor v. Shahdino Dhanipar to be reported to the requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C. in A I R 1940 Sind 114 it was laid down by the Sind Chief Court that a judgment must conform to the provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C. which requires inter alia that it shall contain points for determination the decision thereon and the reasons for the same. The requirements must be fulfilled in respect of each accused in case there are more than one. It is essential that the judgment in a Cr. case should contain a finding that all the ingredients to make up the offence are proved or not proved as the case may be and such finding should depend upon scrutiny or decision of direct as well as supporting evidence that has been produced by the prosecution in that case. The next important ruling was given by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Constentine, C.J. and Vellani, J, in Latif Ali Shah v. The Crown reported in PLD 1955 Sind 230 where no issue was raised in the Judgment under appeal upon the point whether the accused was a public servant, the charge being that he had defrauded the Government of a certain sum while he was member of the Sind Police Rifles Force. The Court framed a point for determination viz. whether the accused committed fraud upon the Government by drawing 93‑7‑0 twice or did he so through genuine mistake. It was held that to was no compliance with section 367, Cr.P.C. The prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and it is for a Judge to set these out seriatim. The Division Bench further observed that it has often come across the errors of oversight due to this lax habit of framing the point for determination. The next ruling was in the case of Rustam and others v. The Crown reported in P L D 1951 B J 59 and was given by Abdul Aziz, C.J. relying upon the first rulings as well as two Indian rulings, one reported in A I R 1943 Cal. 612 and other 45 Cr. L J 1844. The relevant passages of the above ruling are reproduced as under: ‑ "The Sessions Judge while writing the judgment ignored the mandatory provisions of section 367, Criminal Procedure Code. The Judgment did not show what were the point or points for determination nor that any decision was given thereon. (p. 60). The most important question in this case was whether an unlawful assembly was constituted and who constituted it. There were 8 accused before the learned Sessions Judge. It was his paramount duty to discuss the evidence against each and every accused which was produced by the prosecution in support of their case to arrive at the right and conscientious decision. But the Sessions Judge had not considered it worth while to do so (pp. 60‑61). Such a judgment is not judgment in the eye of the law consequently there was no alternative but to set it aside and ask the Sessions Judge to rewrite it (p. 61). For the reasons shown above, I am of the clear view that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gambat has not complied with the requirements of section 367 (1), Cr.P.C. and as such the impugned judgment is not a judgment in the eye of law. Consequently, I have no B alternative but to set it aside and direct the trial Court to rewrite the Judgment keeping in view the provisions of section 367 (1), Cr.P.C. particularly those with regard to framing of the points for determination and the findings thereon alongwith reasons for arriving at those findings. I further direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge Khairpur is directed to keep the case on his file or to make it over to any other Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge. S. A. Case remanded.