STATE Versus ANWAR BEGUM

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J: -- Mst. Anwar Begum and another stood trial before Ch. Shabbir Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on charges under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them, vide his judgment, dated the 10th February, 1992. This appeal is directed against the said judgment.

2. The foremost point canvassed by learned counsel for the State, while assailing the impugned judgment, was that it was no judgment in the eye of law as it was announced without its having been written or signed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on The State v. Qasem Ali P L D 1964 Dacca 56; Muhammad Bashir v. Muhammad Hussain etc. 1977 P Cr. L J 526; The State v. Khaliq Dad and another P L D 1985 Kar. 4 and Muhammad Hassan alias Cheena v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J 1294.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents did not controvert the plea that the judgment under challenge was not written, dictated or signed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before it was announced. It was, however, maintained by him that this lapse on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Question similar to the one raised before us cropped up before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Hassan alias Cheena, cited by learned counsel for the State (appellant), and it was ruled by the learned Rench that if a judgment is dictated or written but not signed before its announcement, it is illegal and is no judgment in the eye of law. While expressing this view, law laid down in Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 389 was followed.

5. As for the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the shortcoming of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the matter of pronouncement of the judgment without its having been written and signed by him is curable, it was also advanced in the case of Abdul Sattar Howladar, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, but it was held by the Dacca High Court that omission to write out judgment before its announcement is not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While delivering this verdict, the Dacca High Court relied on the dictum in Queen Empress v. Hargobinda Singh I L R 14 All. 242.

6. We, with respect, share the opinion delivered by the Dacca High Court in the case of Abdul Sattar Howladar and hold that the failure of the Court to write and sign judgment before its announcement is not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment under challenge is a nullity in the eye of law and, therefore, acquittal of the respondent is illegal. In this view 13 of the matter, case against the respondents continues to be pending. All the learned counsel have unanimously stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who acquitted the respondents, is no longer available to redecide the case and that the case also relates to area which now forms part of the recently created District of Mandi Bahauddin. Resultantly, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment as well as the acquittal of the respondents, which C has been ordered by means of that judgment, and remand this case to the Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin. He is directed to rehear and decide the case personally.

8. As it is an old matter, the learned Sessions Judge shall endeavour to decide it within three months.

N.H.Q./857/FSC ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.