Direndra Shikdar vs State of Maharashtra

M.M. Qazi, J.—The Sessions Case No. 10 of 1985 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, where nine accused are facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions trial has arisen out of an incident dated October 16, 1984. Since the accused also suffered injuries, they reported the matter to the police and the police initiated Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 against the complainants. They are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli. Since both the cases have arisen out of the same incident, the Public Prosecutor, Chandrapur, moved the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on August 17, 1989 for calling the record of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 Crime No. 126/1984 : State v. Tapan and Ors. pending before the J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli and requested him to try the case himself. The said application was opposed on behalf of the present applicants on the ground that there is no provision to call for the record of another case. However, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel came to the conclusion that since the two cases had arisen out of the same incident, it was expedient to try it himself and, therefore, he directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to commit Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 to himself. Out of the five accused, accused Direndra and accused Malin (the present applicants) felt aggrieved by the said order and hence this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Sirpurkar has contended that there is no power in the Sessions Court to direct the Magistrate to commit a particular case to itself. Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the commitment of such cases which are triable exclusively by the Court of Session. It may be pointed out that Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 pertains to offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. All these offencees are triable only by the Magistrate, First Class. The learned Sessions Judge did not mention any provision under which he directed the commitment of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 to himself. Even the learned Public Prosecutor did not mention any provision in the application which was moved for transfer of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 pending at Gadchiroli to the Court of Session at Chandrapur.

Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals essentially with the powers of the Sessions Judge to transfer a particular case from one criminal court to another criminal court in his sessions division. Section 408 reads as under:

Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals:- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division.

(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on his own initiative.

(3) The provisions of Sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of Section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under Sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 407, except that Sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand rupees" occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted.

Even this section, in my view, did not confer any power on the Sessions Judge to call any case from the file of the Criminal Court to himself. Thus, it appears that there is no provision in the Code under which the Sessions Judge can call any case or appeal from the file of the subordinate Criminal Court to himself, and this power is not given to the Sessions Judge since this power is vested exclusively in the High Court u/s 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The portion which is material of Section 407 is reproduced below:

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-

(a) that a fair mid impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

(b) that sonic question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or

(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice.

it may order-

(i) ... ... ... (ii) ... ... ...

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

(iv) ... ... ...

From the above provision it is obvious that the power to commit a particular case for trial to the Court of Session is given to the High Court alone and, therefore, there is no provision in the Code giving this power to the Sessions Court. In view of this provision, Mr. Sirpurkar has rightly submitted that the Public Prosecutor should have moved the High Court u/s 407(1)(c)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting for commital of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 to the Court of Session, Chandrapur.

Mrs. Bodade has invited my attention to the notification dated July 6, 1989 issued by the Government in consultation with the High Court. Relying on this notification, she has argued that the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, is empowered to withdraw upto himself any case from the sessions division of Gadchiroli. This notification is issued under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These sections deal essentially with the territorial jurisdiction of a sessions division. It does not appear that this provision confers any power on the Sessions Court to withdraw any case to itself from a Criminal Court subordinate thereto. It appears that the notification was issued because the district Chandrapur was divided into two districts, viz, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli, and therefore, it was necessary to define the sessions division of Gadchiroli, vis-a-vis, the sessions division of Chandrapur. The material portion of the notification reads asunder:

...so far as it relates to the Sessions Division of Chandrapur, the Government of Maharashtra, in consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, creates with effect from 17th day of July 1989 a sessions division for the revenue district of Gadchiroli in the Judicial district of Chandrapur for trial of cases arising from the limits of the said sessions division.

It further recites:

The Sessions Judge, Chandrapur shall have the powers to withdraw upto himself cases from the said sessions division or assign to another Court of competent jurisdiction, or to assign upto the Additional Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli any such cases as he thinks fit.

Mr. Sirpurkar has relied on a decision in Gundi Sahu and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, . The said decision docs support him. A passage from the said decision is reproduced below:

Mr. Mohanty. the learned Government Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1 in this case, contends that this application is not maintainable in view of the fact that an application to this effect had not been made to the Sessions Judge as provided under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 407 of the new Code. Mr. Bohidar submits that apart from the fact that a matter of this nature can be directly moved in the High Court, there is no provision in the new Criminal Procedure Code for the Sessions Judge to direct the commitment of a case pending before a Subordinate Magistrate to the Sessions Court, and so the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 407 docs not apply to a matter of this nature. The Sessions Judge has power u/s 408 to transfer cases from one criminal Court to another criminal court in his own Sessions Divison. That Section does not make any provision for a direction by the Sessions Judge to commit a particular case pending before a Magistrate subordinate to the Court of Session. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties are not able to show any provision in the New Code by which a Sessions Judge can exercise jurisdiction, one way or the other, in a matter of this nature, Section 407(1)(c) read with Clause (iii) thereof provides that whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that an order under this Section is required by any provision of this Code or will tend to die general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, the High Court may order that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session. Therefore, according to the new Criminal Procedure Code the High Court only can exercise the power to the above effect and the Court of Session has no such power.

Having regard to the above facts, I do not think, the Sessions Court had any power to direct the trial Court to commit Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 to itself. I am satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The application is, accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.