The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Additional Sessions Judge does not have the power to withdraw a case for trial, as specified in Section 409 and Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) IN this criminal revisional application the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge at bolpur, Birbhum, in connection with the Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2004, whereby the learned Judge rejected the petitioners application under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the case, namely, g. R. Case No. 389 of 2003 under Sections 148/149/448/380 and 323 of the indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate, Bolpur to his Court and held trial of the said case analogously with the Sessions Trial No 142 of 2004.

( 2 ) HEARD, the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order and other materials on record.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal for trial, the case in question from the Court of the learned SDJM, Bolpur to his Court on the ground that the learned Judge being the Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track Court has no power to withdraw the case to his Court in terms of the provisions of Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sessions Judge has only empowered to pass such an order. In addition to that learned Judge has also relied on the provisions of Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where it has been specifically provided that learned Additional Sessions Judge has only empowered to try those cases which have been placed before him for trial by an order of the learned Sessions Judge or by a special order of the High Court. I have carefully perused the said order and found that the learned Judge was perfectly right in passing such order and his order neither suffers from any illegality or any infirmity which warrants any interference by this Court.

( 4 ) MR. Ghosh, lastly submitted that this is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, this Court have ample power to pass such an order for transfer of the case from the Court of the learned sub-divisional Magistrate to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Bolpur where the counter case is pending for analogous trial. In my view, the submission made by Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh has no merit. It is a settled position that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court not to be exercised in the matter covered by the specific provision of the Code and only where there is no express power available to do of thing but the doing such thing is extremely necessary for ends of justice the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can do the same.

( 5 ) IN this connection it would be sufficient to rely and refer only two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Those are Arun Shankar Sukla v. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in (1999)6 SCC 146 : 1999 C Cr LR (SC)359 and Mary Angel and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999)5 scc 209 : 1999 C Gr LR (SC) 305. In this case that withdrawal of a case and appeal from one Court to another within the same sessions division under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower the learned sessions Judge of the particular sessions division to do the same. Since there being the specific provision empowering the learned Sessions Judge under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the case from any Court within his sessions division and made over the same to another Court for trial, the question of exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court to direct the same is not called for. This revisional application has no merit and stands dismissed.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners, if so advised may proceed in accordance with the law for transfer of the G. R. Case No. 389 of 2003 pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at Bolpur for analogous trial with the sessions Trial No. 142 of 2004 to the Court where same is now pending. If suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document