Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.M.AGARWAL, S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY
Patel Sudhakar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Registrar (Administration) High Court - Respondent
Decided On : 09-27-94
TADA ACT - SECTION 9 (6) - INTERPRETATION - APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE TO DESIGNATED COURT - QUALIFICATION - SESSIONS JUDGE OR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - MEANING - GENERAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 9 (2) AND (3) OF CR. P. C. AND BY GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 9 (4) AND (5) OF TADA ACT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the appointment of the third respondent as a Judge of the designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act) on the ground that it was contrary to Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act, which requires that the person before appointment as a Judge of a Designated court must have been immediately before such appointment a Sessions Judge or an additional Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the third respondent was duly qualified to be appointed as Additional Judge for the Designated Court. The court interpreted Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act and held that it does not require that the person appointed as a Judge of a Designated Court should have actually worked as a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge. The court also held that the general notifications issued by the High Court under Section 9 Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure and by the Government under Section 9 Sub-sections (4) and (5) of the TADA Act are valid.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the third respondent as a Judge of the designated Court was contrary to Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act and held that it does not require that the person appointed as a Judge of a Designated Court should have actually worked as a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge. The court also held that the general notifications issued by the High Court under Section 9 Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure and by the Government under Section 9 Sub-sections (4) and (5) of the TADA Act are valid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the learned single Judge.
( 1 ) THE appellant who is facing trial in S. C. 207 of 1993 on the file of II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad- cum-Additional Designated Judge under terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (for short the TADA Act ) has filed writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of third respondent, Mr. K. Mahalaxmi Rao, as a Judge of the designated Court on the ground that it is contrary to Section 9 (6) of the TADA Act, which requires that the person before appointment as a Judge of a Designated court must have been immediately before such appointment a Sessions Judge or an additional Sessions Judge. Our learned brother dismissed the writ petition and against that order, this appeal has been filed
( 2 ) TO appreciate the point raised by the appellant, it is necessary to state a few facts which are not in dispute. The third respondent nas been promoted temporarily as District and Sessions Judge Grade II by G. O. Rt. No. 4131 dated 25-9-1992. On 2-11-1992, by G. O. Rt No. 4730, he was posted as Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad. By notification No. 82-3. Spl. dated 19-4-1994, while making postings and transfers, the high Court has posted him as Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court-cum-II additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. He took charge on 5-5-1994.
( 3 ) BY Roc. No. 25/so/74 dated 14-8-1974, the High Court exercising power under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act II of 1974), appointed District judges by virtue of their office to be the sessions Judges of the respective Courts of session and also Additional District Judges to be the Additional Sessions Judges. By GO. Ms. No. 345 dated 25-7-1987, the government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 8 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987 (Central ordinance 2 of 1987), which has become later Section 9 in the Act, constituted all courts of Sessions in the State as Designated Courts within their respective jurisdiction and appointed the principal Sessions judges of the Courts of Sessions as Judges to preside over the Designated Courts. By go. Ms. No. 518 dated 29-10-1987, issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the tada Act, the Government appointed with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of High Court, II Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as Additional judge to exercise jurisdiction in the Designated Court constituted for Metropolitan sessions Division. By another G. O. Ms. No. 328 dated 7-6-1988, also issued under section 9 (5) of the TADA Act the government with the concurrence of the chief Justice of the High Court appointed all the Additional Sessions Judges in the state as Additional Judges to exercise jurisdiction in Designated Courts except the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge. This government Order is, however, not material for purpose of this writ appeal.
( 4 ) THE contention of Sri K. G. Kannabiran, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is that under Section 9 Subsection (6) of the TADA Act, for appointment as a Judge of a Designated Court, the officer must have been immediately before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge and as the third respondent was not a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge before 19-4-1994, when he was posted as II Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, he is not eligible to preside over the designated Court. Mr. Kannabiran elaborates his argument by saying that appointment as District and Sessions Judge is different from empowering him with sessions powers under Section 9 Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the code of Criminal procedure. He further submits that the district Judge does not include Sessions judge and that Article 236 of the constitution of India defining District judge to include Sessions Judge and additional Sessions Judge among other designations is only for the purp
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.