[Sections 366 To 369, 556, Cr.P.C.]
Judgment and order difference. Every order in a criminal matter is not a judgment; judgment in criminal procedure means a judgment of conviction or acquittal. (Federal Court) ILR 1940 Lah. 400 Hari Ram Singh v. Crown (FB) ILR XXV 1944 Lah. 391. Crown v. Atta Muhammad.
"Judgment" as used in section 369 Cr.P.C. includes decisions and order passed in criminal matters on merits of a case and High Court has no jurisdiction to amend or alter its judgment. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1785, Maulana Muhammad Azam Taiq v. Khursheed Ali etc. Contra. (F.B.) ILR XXV 1944 Lah. 391, Crown v. Atta Muhammad.
Order of discharge is not a judgment, as a judgment is intended to indicate the final order in a trial terminating in either the conviction or acquittal of the accused. ILR (1908) 31 Madras 543 (545).
Judgment to be recorded, dated and signed before pronouncing. Requirement of Sections 366 and 367 are no mere matters of form. They require that in the case of an original trial or an appeal except in the case of High Court by Section 424, the Court must record a proper judgment, date and sign it at the time of pronouncing it and passing the sentence. It is illegal for a Court to pass a sentence without recording a judgment AIR 1942 Lah. 100 Gulla v. Emp. 14 All. 242 (FB) Hargobind v. Emp. Contra. 45 Mad. 913 (FB). Sankarlinga-holding it as mere irregularity curable under Section 537. 25 Cr.LJ 705 Ata Muhammad.
Judgment. Sections 366, 367 and 369 Cr.P.C. When a judgment is signed but not announced in open Court it is not a judgment. When a judgment is orally announced but not written and signed such order is not judgment and is inoperative and of no legal effect and liable to be declared as such by High Court u/S. 561-A Cr.P.C. However, after announcing the judgment orally but not signing it the Court may change it but only after rehearing the parties. When a judge retires he cannot perform any judicial work like recording of reasons in support of the short order announced earlier. When a short order was written and signed and announced and the judge retired, that order becomes the final judgment. 1997 SCMR 209, The State V. Asif Adil etc.
Judgment not written and signed at the time of its announcement is a nullity in the eye of law and not curable u/S. 537 Cr.P.C. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 441. State v. Mst. Anwar Begum; PLD 1964 Dac 56, State v. Qasim Ali; ILR 14 All 242, Q.E. v. Hargobind Singh relied upon.
Judgment not written and signed before announcement is not a judgment in the eye of law. Acquittal set aside and the case remanded for retrial. Also held that the illegality is not curable u/S. 537 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1994 FSC 49, State v. Mst. Anwar Begam etc.
Judgment not signed and announced in accordance with law is not a valid judgment. The case to be deemed to be pending and decided after rehearing 1977 P.Cr.LJ. 526. Muhammad Bashir v. Muhammad Hussain.
Magistrate died after pronouncing the sentence without recording judgment. The High Court reversed the conviction and sentence and ordered a retrial. 1 Bom. LR 160 Kamthia v. Emp. Magistrate acquitted the accused without recording the judgment and died; proper course for High Court to direct trial Court to conclude trial according to law. Oral acquittal held to be a nullity. (SC) 1972 SCMR 109. Mahboob Ali v. Qamar Ali.
Oral announcement of judgment without writing and signing it is nullity in law. Case remanded for retrial. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Kar.) 463. State v. Khaliq Dad etc.
Announcement of judgment reserved should be done within a reasonable period of time and not after one year. 1989 SCMR 1473. Muhammad Bakhsh.
Judgment neither dictated nor written on the day when announced but dictated later on. Sentence and conviction vitiated. De novo trial ordered 1973 P.Cr.LJ. 389. Ghulam Mustafa 1969 P.Cr.LJ 641. Mahboob Ali v. Qamar Ali. AIR 1942 Lah. 10 Ghula v. Emperor.
Judgment delivery principles:
(1) Provisions of sections 366 and 367 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to High Court, but in absence of any rule to the contrary in Letters Patent of High Court, principles laid down in Ss. 366& 367 Cr.P.C. are applicable.
(2) Signing of a proposed judgment without pronouncing it in open Court by the trial Magistrate is not a judgment and can be altered but once judgment is signed and pronounced it cannot be altered and the Magistrate becomes functus officio.
(3) An oral order of acquittal or conviction is not a judgment and is liable to be declared  as such by High Court u/S. 561-A Cr.P.C.
(4) In all cases when a judgment is delivered and signed it cannot be changed. It can be changed before it is signed and declared.
(5) Short orders which have been recorded, signed and pronounced in Court shall be fully operative and the case shall stand disposed of. PLJ 1997 S.C. 1202, State v. Asif Adil etc.
High Court judgment not giving reasons for arriving at the conclusion as required by the mandatory provisions of Sec. 367 Cr.P.C. nor it contained evaluation of evidence and discussion. Case remanded to High Court for fresh hearing and fresh judgment. 1997 SCMR 871, Sahab Khan etc.
Evaluation of evidence and discussion and also reasons for arriving at the conclusion as required u/S. 367, Cr.P.C. not done. Case remanded to High Court for fresh hearing of appeal and fresh judgment strictly in accordance with law. PLJ 1997 SC 1953 Shahab Khan, etc.
Judgment not pronounced is not judgment within meaning of Section 369, Cr.P.C. although it is written and signed. Such judgment does not operate as a bar to further proceedings. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 97. Sharif v. Syeda Khatoon.
Judgment not pronounced. A judgment which is not delivered is no judgment. A judgment though written and signed is not operative until it is pronounced and till then must be taken merely as an expression of opinion. Where a Judge after writing his judgment but before delivery, dies or leaves the bench his written judgment cannot be considered as a judgment. 14 Cr.LJ 562. Ramadhan. v. Emp. PLD 1962 SC 97. Amin Sharif v. Syeda Khatoon.
Judgment pronounced by successor Session's Judge. Presiding Officer writing and pronouncing judgment must be same. Sessions Judge transferred to another Session's division writing judgment after handing over his charge. Judgment pronounced by his successor. There is no Judgment capable of being cured under Section 537, Cr.P.C. Session Judge has power by virtue of his appointment to a particular division and not as Sessions Judge simpliciter. (DB) 48 Cr.LJ 81 (Mad) Re. Pattan Ali Khan.
Sessions Judge after transfer to another district writing the judgment of the trial held by him in another district, and sending it for pronouncement to the other District. Held, judgment without jurisdiction. PLJ 1976 BJ 51. Muhammad etc. PLD 1976 BJ 41.
Judge handing over charge. A Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to deliver judgment after handing over charge to his successor and after vacating his office. 34 Cr.LJ 112. Ram Rattan.
Mere technical defect in judgment per se is not sufficient to lightly set aside findings of acquittal passed by the High Court PLJ 1996 SC 153, Nazir Ahmed v. Muhammad Sadiq etc. 
High Court judgment written and signed by one Judge can be pronounced by another Judge. PLD 1963 Kar. 313 Anwar Ahmad v. Abdullah etc.
Section 366, Cr.P.C. not applicable to appeals and specifically an appeal disposed of summarily whether by a District Magistrate, a Sessions Judge, or a High Court. 41 Cr. LJ 711. Jodha v. King Emp.
Review. The High Court like the lower Courts can review its judgment before it is signed. 13 Cr.LJ 120. Amodini v. Darsan. After the High Court judgment is signed it cannot be reviewed or altered. 36 Cr.LJ 1286.
Judgment pronounced by High Court orally without any note being signed or pronouncement, may be subsequently altered after rehearing. (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 161. Rukin Din v. Hafiz-ud-Din. (SC) PLJ 1973 SC 228. Muhammad Ramzan.
Order passed without jurisdiction can be reviewed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. when no opportunity given to the accused to be heard, High Court reviewed its order. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 107. State v. Muhammad Hassan.
Review of order passed under Section 497(5) can be done under Section 561-A as an order under Section 497(5) is not judgment under Section 369. Order cancelling bail recalled. 1975 P.C.LJ 471. Ejaz Qadeer.
Previous order of enhancement recalled when judgment passed without hearing the accused. Held, Section 369 does not apply to such cases. PLD 1974 Kar. 22 Muhammad Hanif.
Before signing and sealing of judgment High Court u/Ss. 366 and 369, Cr.P.C. can rehear a case and change oral orders already pronounced. 1979 SCMR 200. Muhammad Ramzan.
Alteration of judgment. Under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. High Court can alter the judgment to the extent of directing the jail authorities that u/S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. period of detention during trial be deducted from the sentence. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Lah.) 217. Fazal Haq. Also see (F.B.) PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 407, Zulfiqar Ali.
Until signed can be altered. Judgment delivered by High Court but not signed, until judgment pronounced due to inaccurate copy of notification. High Court can rehear the appeal. (DB) 46 Cr.LJ. 30 Mohan Singh. 215 Ind. Cas. 121 = AIR 1944 Pat. 209 = (SC) PLJ 1978 SC 228 Muhammad Ramzan.
Petition for clarification of orders passed by Court. When order is passed and signed Court becomes functus officio. Order if wrongly interpreted by any Court or authority remedy lies in appeal or revision according to law. (SC) 1975 SCMR 258. Aqil Hussain v. Masood Jilani.
Section 369 does not control Section 498 and in suitable cases section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked. (SC) PLD 1970 SC PLD 1970 SC 335, Gulzar Hussain Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza.
Review of judgment not allowed. Once it is signed and announced. 1974 P. Cr.LJ 95. Ghulam Raza.
Speaking order. Judicial. Order must be speaking order to enable High Courts to have an idea of grounds of dismissal and also that the questions raised were covered. PLD 1976 Q. 28. Baz Muhammad etc. v. M.B. Revenue.
Non-speaking order in revision is not justified. Judgment or order should be sufficiently clear to enable the Supreme Court to get some idea of the facts of the case and the reasons for which it has been disposed of were just. (SC) NLR 1983 Cr. 1. Abdul Rehman etc.
Judgment to give reasons. Every order passed by a Court and challengeable before a higher forum to contain outline of case alongwith reasons for the view which found favour with the Court. PLJ 1983 SC 92. Kamal Din.
Judgment to state facts and reasons to enable appellate Court to know facts and consider whether the reasons are sound. PLJ 1983 SC 98. Abdul Rehman.
Judgment to contain point or points for determination, decision of Court on such points, and reasons for decision. When trial Court dealing with prosecution evidence in the case did not record his own reasons for rejecting prosecution evidence, mere reproduction of criticism of defence counsel of prosecution evidence is not sufficient to absolve the Court of its duty to record its own reasons for accepting or rejecting of prosecution evidence. Held, High Court fully justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal. PLJ 1996 S.C. 1354, Shahid and two others. = 1996 SCMR 1368.
Provisions of sec 367 Cr.P.C. not complied with in the judgment, impugned judgment set aside and case remanded to the trial Court. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1189, Abdul Qayum.
Judgment to specify relevant section of code where under the accused is convicted and sentenced, as is required u/S. 367 Cr.P.C. 1996 SCMR 3, Muddasar.
Not a judgment. When the appellate Court judgment does not state the point for determination, the reasons for the decision, the nature of occurrences, the prosecution case and deals with defence case only it is not a proper Judgment, section 537, Cr.P.C. does not cure it. (DB) 45 Cr.LJ 71. Addul Ghani v. Emperor.
Order without considering merits and arguments is not judgment. Judgment is expression of Court's opinion given after due consideration of evidence and all arguments. Sections 369 and 430, Cr.P.C. are not applicable to such orders. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 412. Muhammad Ishaq.
Evidence of DWs not discussed in judgment. Trial Court cannot exclude any material from consideration while recording findings. Case remanded for rewriting the judgment. PLJ 1900 Cr.C. (Kar.) 267. Muhammad Sharif.
Defence evidence neither discussed nor disbelieved. Sessions Judge also did not discuss the evidence. He did not apply his mind to it. Revision accepted. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 122. Muhammad Bakhsh.
Case remanded for rewriting of judgment when points for determination not specified, absence of decision on points raised and total lack of reasoning. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Q.) 434. Issa Khan.
Mere reproduction of trial Court Judgment in considerable portions in the judgment of the appellate Court, and the contribution made by the Sessions Judge appeared to be negligible, held, such judgment could not be regarded as proper and was of doubtful validity. It did not represent an honest discharge of duty by the appellate Court. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 297. Muhammad Akhtar.
Simply agreeing with judgment of trial Court. High Court's appellate judgment, dismissing appeal containing no examination of facts or legal issues and simply agreeing with the judgment of trial Court, ignoring arguments contained in Sessions Judge's appellate judgment in favour of acquittal of accused. Held, High Court should have expressed their reasons for disagreeing with a view expressed by Sessions Judge. Supreme Court itself examined the evidence to see whether Sessions Judge was correct in his views. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 251. Askar Ali.
Prosecution version more probable than defence version. Decision of Court must not be based merely on the ground that the prosecution version is more probable than defence version. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 300. Goman v. Crown.
Application of mind. Appeal dismissed summarily, order must show that the Court had applied its Judicial mind to questions of facts and law raised in case, though a "Full and complete" judgment is not required to be recorded. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 498. Abdur Rashid.
Whether mind applied. Judgment of final court of appeal to facts not indicating that Court applied its mind to the evidence. Held, not a proper Judgment. Retrial ordered. (DB) PLD 1958 Dac. 549 Kalu Bepari.
Appellate Court Judgment, not setting out points for determination, the decision thereon, nor reasons for the same. Held, no Judgment in the eye of law. Case remanded for rewriting Judgment. PLD 1958 Pesh. 31. Gulzaman.
Appellate Court not recapitulating evidence of P.Ws. yet recording its findings by saying that PW 1, 2 and 3 proved that the stolen animal belonged to owner complainant. Such statement, held, enough to show that the appellate Court did not accept defence story. (SC) 1970 SCMR 877. Matiar Rahman.
Appellate Judgment like the Judgment of the Court of first instance must fulfil the conditions laid down in this section (367); that is, the Judgment must state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decisions. 21 Cr.LJ 233 (Lah.) Bindar Ban v. Crown.ILR 5 Lah. 308 Dalip Singh; AIR 1945 Oudh 52 = PLD 1952 BJ 34. Gul Muhammad v. Crown. PLD 1958 Pesh. 31. Gulzaman.
Point not specified. If the appellate Court dismisses the appeal without specifying the points, the appellate order must be set aside and the appeal reheard. 31 Cr.LJ 925. Shanmukh Basapa.
Appellate Judgment must be quite independent and should stand by itself, it ought not to be read in connection with or as supplementary to the Judgment of the Court of first instance. AIR 1937 Sindh 26. Ghous Bux. AIR 1937 Pesh. 88.
Delayed Judgment. Where the Magistrate delivered his Judgment ten months after he heard the evidence, ordinarily a retrial might be directed in such circumstances. AIR 1942 Cal. 225. Surender Nath v. Emp.
High Court while confirming death sentence under section 276, Cr. P.C. has no power to specify the manner of executing the sentence of death, which was omitted by the Sessions Judge. (DB) PLD 1952 Lah. 560. Crown v. Saidu.
Importation of personal knowledge in Judgment by Magistrate without being witness is illegal. Defect is not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. PLD 1957 Dac. 164. Abdul Kadir v. Khalil-ur-Rehman.
Defence case dealt with first in the Judgment. No prejudice caused to the accused. Course adopted if irregular at all, curable under section 537, Cr. P.C. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 6. Islam-ul-Haq.
Sections of Penal Code not stated under which accused convicted and sentenced. Held, irregularity curable under section 537. PLD 1957 Lah. 639. Khair Din.
Conviction under 4 sections but no separate sentence passed under each section in violation of section 367 (2) & (3), Cr.P.C. Conviction set aside. Retrial not ordered as occurrence in 1986 and revision decided on 26-5-91. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 489. Ali Muhammad etc.
Judgment of Civil Court as Evidence Criminal in Court:
Question. "When there are concurrent proceedings covering the same ground before a Criminal Court the parties being substantially the same, would the judgment of the Civil Court, if obtained first, be admissible in evidence before the Criminal Court in proof or disproof of the fact on which the prosecution is based?"
Answer of the Full Bench is No.
I must admit that it would have been a good thing to avoid conflict of opinion between the two Courts if it were legally possible to do so, but in the absence of any provision to that effect in the Evidence Act. I cannot see how could this be avoided as long as it is possible for two independent Judges to come to two different findings on the same evidence.
"As for the Chief Court decision Mr. Justice Rattigan assumed that in all cases of the kind with which he was dealing the proper tribunal to decide was a Civil Court, and that save for very exceptional reasons the decision of the Civil Court should be accepted as conclusive between parties. There is no reason in my Judgment as to why the decision of the Civil Court particularly in an action in personam should be allowed to have that sanctity. There appears to be no sound reason for that view. To hold that when a party has been able to satisfy a Civil Court as to the justice of his claim and has in the result succeeded in obtaining a decree which is final go behind the findings of the Civil Court is to place the latter, without any valid reason, in a much higher position than what it actually occupies in the system of administration in this country and to make it master not only of cases which  it is called upon to adjudicate but also of cases which it is not called upon to determine and over which it has really no control. The fact is that the issue in the two cases although based on the same facts (and strictly speaking even the parties in the two proceedings) are not identical and there appears to be no sufficient reason for delaying the proceedings in the Criminal Court, which unhampered by the Civil Court, it is fully competent to decide and which must be in the nature of things decided speedily". (FB) ILR 25 Lah. 408 (414). B.N. Kayshap v. The Crown.
Civil Court Judgment is not admissible in criminal proceedings to establish the truth of the facts upon which it was rendered. Courts below were thus right in not staying the criminal proceedings against the accused. 1995 SCMR 1621, Malik Khuda Bakhsh.
Pendency of civil suit not to affect criminal cases, about the same matter. Held, pendency of civil suit about authenticity of power of attorney or otherwise, matter in relation to commission of offence by accused/respondent still would remain current for its resolution in the later proceedings. 1998 P.Cr.LJ. 1157 Alhaj Shedadi Mumtaz v. Area Magistrate, Lahore, etc. (In writ jurisdiction)
Judgment and findings of Civil Court not binding on Criminal Court. Judgment of Civil Court is irrelevant for matters referred to in sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act in concurrent proceedings between the same parties and on same grounds pending before Criminal Court. PLD 1966 Kar. 231. State v. Ilahi Bakhsh etc. PLD 1958 Dac. 350. Rehmat Ullah etc.
Judgment of Civil Court is not admissible in criminal proceedings to establish the truth of facts upon which it is rendered. (SC) 1972 SCMR 584 Mst. Naseer Begum v. Sain and others.
Use of Criminal Court Judgment by Civil Judge to discredit testimony of a witness is wholly unwarranted and illegal. (SC) 1971 SCMR 321. Dil Muhammad etc v. Iqbal Muhammad.
Use of Criminal Court Judgment in another criminal case to show that the witnesses and their evidence had been declared to have falsely implicated the accused in the earlier case. Judgment, held not relevant. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 157. Muhammad Khurshid.
Separate trials but one judgment, held, illegal. Case remanded for retrial. NLR 1981 Cr. 448. Abdul Haq v. Muhammad Habib.
Findings of one case cannot be transferred and applied to facts involved in another case. Each case to depend on its own facts. (DB) PLD 1963 Kar. 242. State v. Bashir Ahmed.
Accused absconding pending appeal against transportation for life. Held, appeal should not be dismissed except on merits, and it is not justified to dispose of the appeal on merits when the accused is absconding. However, the appeal can be rejected without going into merits of the case. It will not be a Judgment under section 369 and hence no bar to the rehearing of the appeal on merits. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 655. Sher Khan.
Obtaining conflicting orders from High Court by suppressing information about the previous application under section 561-A which was dismissed. The applicant obtained favourable order in application under section 439. Held, the applicant was guilty of contempt of Court. PLD 1961 Lah. 227. Muhammad Sami Ullah Khan.
Plea of guilty and judgment. Even though the accused pleads guilty the magistrate is not absolved from writing a proper judgment. PLD 1977 Lah. 1063. State v. Rab Nawaz.
Civil Courts to be given preference and allowed to decide cases u/ss 420, 406, 467 & 468 PPC and other cognate offences are similar as would appear in most cases of breach of contract. No doubt in such cases both remedies on criminal as well as on civil side are available and can be pressed into service but civil courts are to be given preference and allowed to decide such disputes. In such circumstances it is duty of criminal courts to act with circumspection and exercise power with utmost care and caution before it is persuaded to employ its process for compelling attendance. PLD 1993 S.C. 399, Badar ud Din v. Mehr Ahmed Raza etc.