In Re: Damarla Krishnarao and Another

Panchapakesha Ayyar, J.—This is an extraordinary case The two petnrs., grandfather & grandson, were tried for offences Under Sections

323 & 504, I. P. C. by a Bench of Honorary Mags. at Bapatla. They were convicted & sentenced on 19-4-1950 by two out of the Bench of

three, to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each, or, in default, to undergo R. I. for two weeks each, without writing a judgment. The judgment was subsequently

written, on 24-4-1950, by the President & Member who pronounced the sentence on 19-4-1950, & sent to the third member, Yelliah, on 24-4-

1950, for his opinion. He dissented from the judgment of the other two.

As argued by learned counsel for the petnr. & agreed to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the President & the other member acted illegally (&

not merely irregularly) in convicting & sentencing the petnrs. without even consulting the third member Yelliah & without writing a judgment. A

sentence follows a conviction, which is embodied in a judgment. Here the Judgment followed five days after the sentence, & the sentence was by

two members of the Bench without even consulting the third. It was not only like putting the cart before the horse but a fragment of a cart before

horse. It is such illegalities, by a Ct. like this, which shake the confidence of the public in all Bench Cts. These should stop at once. The phrase

Judgment will follow"" in H. C. orders communicating the modified sentence in appeal etc. does not mean that judgments will be written leisurely

thereafter but that judgments already written or dictated & delivered will be fair-copied & sent in due course.

The convictions & sentences of both the petnrs. are set aside ''as illegal'' (as they are not merely irregular & curable u/s 537 Cr. P. C.), & the

petnrs. are acquitted, & the fines, if paid, directed to be refunded to them. The learned Public prosecutor agrees with me that there is no need for a

retrial in this petty case.