This appeal has been preferred by appellant Ghulam Mustafa. He was tried by the learned Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad for offences falling under. Section 161, P. P.
C. Read with subsection (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial ended and the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 23rd September 1969. On this date it is urged on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel that the judgment of conviction and sentences under the above-mentioned sections was pronounced by the learned trial Judge orally but the same was not written beforehand. He has therefore, now challenged in this appeal that when this is the situation such a judgment which was written later on and not at the time of its pronouncement is vitiated by virtue of section 367, Cr. P. C. In support of this contention that the judgment was not written on the date it was pronounced by the trial Judge, the learned counsel has produced three affidavits (1) of Lal Mohammad, who is the uncle of the appellant, (2) of Mr. Agha Abdul Rasool, who is an Advocate and was represent--ing the appellant at the trial and (3) of Rehmat Khan, who was the Stenographer of the learned trial Judge at the time the judgment said to have been pronounced orally in question was delivered. In all these three affidavits it is said in substance that when the learned trial Judge pronounced the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant he had not dictated or written the judgment of conviction and sentence in his own hand. A certified copy of the judgment was applied for on behalf of the appellant- convict on the same day but it was delivered to his relative on 29th September 1969. Before the last mentioned date, however, the appellant had preferred an appeal before this High Court without appending the judgment of conviction and his sentence to his memo. Of appeal because it had not been delivered to him and lie got bail from this Court. The bail order was received by the trial Court somewhere on 26th September, 1969. The Stenographer of the trial Court says in his affidavit that when the order of bail by the High Court was deceived by the trial Judge he then dictated the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. It is, therefore, quite clear from the facts as supported by three affidavits of the persons mentioned above that the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant was not dictated nor written by the learned trial Judge on the date it was pronounced. As such clearly the conviction of the appellant is thereby vitiated vide the case of Mahboob Ali v. Syed Qamar Ali and another (1969 P Cr. LJ 641) which relied on an earlier Division Bench decision of this High Court which was an unreported judgment to the same effect. The learned counsel for the appellant has also cited another case of the Dacca High Court on the same point which he urges and which is M. K. Zaman and others v.
Motiur Rehman (1969 P.Cr. L J 361). This decision also supports the con--tention of the learned counsel urged by him. The learn counsel appearing on behalf of the State concedes this legal poi urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence and the conviction of the latter in this case stand vitiated due to the judgment not having been written or dictated on the day when it was pronounced.
2. Obviously, therefore, the trial of the appellant on this score alone is entirely vitiated. I, therefore, order that the conviction and the sentence of the appellant is set aside and he shall be tried afresh de novo by the same Court in which by now another Judge is holding charge. The appellant is on bail and he shall continue remain on bail during the pendency of the fresh trial