IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1800 OF 2008 Samadhan Waluba Bidgar & Ors ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr H.S. Venegavkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Under rather a very peculiar and unique circumstance, in fact, might be the solitary circumstance under which the present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Heard the rival submissions at length. It would be profitable to mention the unique circumstances which occurred in the Sessions Case No. 63 of 2005 which was before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Niphad, District Nashik. (the Trial Court for short). In the said matter, all three petitioners-accused faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Admittedly, the evidence was led before the trial Court and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the accused were called upon whether to enter in defence but accused did not opt to lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, the arguments of both sides were heard and delivery of judgment was started in the open court, then the learned Trial Court dictated the judgment, till 36 pages, and specifically came to the conclusion of holding the appellant-accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. Thereafter, learned trial Court retired in chamber after making observation that it was necessary for him to hear the learned Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the point of punishment. From the R and P of the said matter brought before this Court, this Court ( 3 ) has gone through the said original typed judgment which is running in 36 pages and at the end there is signature of the trial Court dated 2nd May, 2008. 5. During the recess, in fact, a thing happened, in such a manner, that a letter from the High Court Bombay reached the Trial Court and as per such letter the said Presiding Officer - became functus officio as he was conveyed that his resignation has been accepted. Due to this rather unique circumstance the final pronouncement of the sentence/order remained and that was to be done after hearing the rival parties on the point of quantum of punishment. 6. Thereafter, in the above circumstances, the applications came to be preferred before the successor of the retired Judge asking for de novo trial and alternatively for hearing the accused on the entire merits of the case and requesting successor to reapprise the evidence led before his predecessor and come to the ( 4 ) independent conclusion as to guilt or otherwise of the accused and then to pass the final order. 7. Both the said applications were disposed of by the order dated 14.8.2008 by the successor (Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Niphad, District Nashik) rejecting both the applications and opining that he will only hear the parties on the quantum of punishment to be inflicted and then pronounce the formal order of sentencing, as according to him, out of two parts of the judgment, as contemplated by Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, first part as to coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused, was already over and the remaining part of judgment as to the pronouncing the sentence after hearing the accused on the quantum of punishment only was remained. This is the order under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. On behalf of the petitioners, it is ( 5 ) tried to argue that the Roznama of the relevant date shows certain alterations and taking shelter of the same it is further argued that the dictation was never started on the Dais and as such there was no any date of pronouncement of the judgment known to the accused. 9. This Court has gone through the said relevant Roznama, dated 2.5.2008, which specifically shows that the judgment was being dictated in the open court and adjourned till second sitting and thereafter due to receipt of the letter as to the acceptance of resignation of the Presiding Officer matter was adjourned for pronouncement of the order/sentence. Moreover, this Court has seen the said original judgment, which is running in 36 pages and which has reached till the page of said Presiding Officer holding accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the offences. Such conclusion is appearing in para 33 of the said judgment and bears signature of the said Presiding Officer. In fact, it is seen that in between corrections in the said judgment are also seen ( 6 ) "initialled". 10. Under these circumstances and considering the import of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the reasoning given in the impugned order in the opinion of this Court there is nothing to interfere with the said impugned order and as such present writ petition must fail. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. 12. Stay earlier granted by this Court to the further proceedings to the Sessions case shall stand vacated. 13. On the request on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners the effect of the present order is stayed for the period of two weeks from today. ( 7 ) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)