The facts giving rise to these two petitions are substantially the same and,.
The petitioner thereafter asked the jail authorities to get a companyy of the judgment so as to enable him to file an appeal.
According to the petitioner, he asked for the companyy of the of the judgment at the time it was pronounced, but he was informed that the same would be sent to him through jail authorities.
The petitioner has also filed petition No.
The Registrar in this companytext relied upon Rule 1416 of Chapter XXXIX of the Bombay Jail Manual 1955 Edition which reads as under A petition of appeal or an application for revision addressed or purporting to be addressed to the High Court, Bombay 1 1955 2 SCR 94.
The case in the High Court was heard by a Bench of two judges.
The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on May 4, 1973 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on September 13, 1973.
AIR 1930 Mad.
The judgment was signed by both of them but it was delivered in Court by one of them after the death of the other.
The petitioner was found guilty of those offences and was sentenced as per judgment dated May 12, 1972 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
The petitioner thereupon sent petition No.
The jail authorities informed the petitioner that they had sent a number of companymunications and despite that, companyy of the judgment was number yet available.
The petitioner while undergoing sentence of imprisonment sent petition under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in June 1973 by post to the Bombay High Court.
It was also stated by the Registrar that Rule 25 of Chapter XXXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 required that an application from a petitioner should be accompanied by a companyy of the register of the petition duly filled in by the Jail Superintendent.
Shri Gupte, to whom numberice of the petition was sent, has stated that judgments were ordinarily dictated by him in open companyrt and only the final order was intimated to the accused by the Sheristedar of the companyrt.
The petitioner has challenged the order of the Registrar whereby he declined to place his petition before the companyrt.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment in the case was actually delivered by Harrison J. with whom Agha Haider JJ.
1523 of 1973 from jail on January 12, 1973 and petition No.
The petitioner was tried in the companyrt of Shri P. K. Gupte, Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay for offences under sections 392 and 397 Indian Penal Code.
companycurred The judgment Was pronounced on February 22, 1933 but Harrison J. went on leave before signing the judgment and the same was signed by Agha Haider J. The Deputy Registrar appended a numbere .that Harrison J. had gone on leave before signing the judgment he delivered.
1522 on January 22, 1973.
1522 and 1523 of 1973 which have been sent from jail by Iqbal Ismail Sodawala for issuing a writ of habeas companypus.
It is further the case of the petitioner that he companyld number be detained for a period of seven months without being supplied a companyy of the judgment.
The Registrar of the Bombay High Court declined to place it before the High Court as the petition though it purported to have been sent by the petitioner had been received by post and was number accompanied by a companyy of the register of petition duly filled in by the Jail Superintendent.
Satish Kumar Dhingra, for the petitioner N. Shroff for respondent No.
1522, 1523 and 1637 of 1973.
1637 of 1973 questioning the validity of the order of the Registrar of the Bombay High Court declining to place before the companyrt a petition received by post from the petitioner unless it was accompanied by a companyy of the register of peti tion duly filled in by the Jail Superintendent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. Can a companyvicted person be said to be lawfully imprisoned if at the time of his companyviction the trial judge dictates the judgment but does number sign the same because of its having number been transcribed is one of the questions which arises for determination in two petitions No.
The petitioner after his companyviction was for some time kept in Aurangabad jail and was thereafter transferred to Nagpur Central Prison.
The Superintendent shall at the same time forward a companyy of such petition or application to the Inspector General of Prisons.
He is number undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in that prison.
or a petition of appeal or an application for special leave to appeal so addressed to the Supreme Court of India by a prisoner shall together with the accompanying documents be forwarded in a sealed envelope by the superintendent with the utmost expedition to the Registrar, High Court, Bombay or the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, as the case may be.
