The High Court has the power under Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to specify the place of sitting of the Court of Sessions, including directing it to hold its sitting in jail. This power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution, but it is not arbitrary or violative of the accused's right to a fair trial.

( 1 ) THIS petition challenges the notification issued by the High Court under Section 9 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The notification reads as under : "in, exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the Hon ble the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court have been pleased to order that Shri Mahesh. Chander, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, shall hold his Court for. the trial of the Sessions case relating to FIR No. RC-2/80 SPE CBI V-IV, State vs. Ranjit Singh and Others according to law, in Central Jail, Tihar".

( 2 ) THERE is a criminal trial going on in which this petition is moved by one of the co-accused Ranjit Singh in which he has been arrested by the CBI on -24th November, 1983 and the case is relating to the murder of Nirankari Baba and his aide. The notification has directed that the Additional Sessions Judge shall hold his Court for the trial of this case in the Central Jail, Tihar.

( 3 ) MR. Bawa Gurcharan Singh who appears for the petitioner submits in the first instance that there is no power in the High Court to have issued a notification under Section 9 (6) of the Code. His argument is that Section 9 (6) specially provides only that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at a place as specified by the High Court. According to him the High Court has not notified that the Court of Sh. Mahesh Chander shall hold its sitting in jail. What the notification amounts to, according to him is that the trial of this particular case as mentioned in the notification will be held in jail and this, he says, is not within the power of the High Court. The learned counsel will have it that the only power which the High Court has is to fix one particular place where any court of Sessions or additional Court of session will hold its sitting, and as Mr. Mahesh Chander is also holding his Court at Patiala House in other cases, the impugned notification is bad. We cannot agree.

( 4 ) SECTION 9 (6) does not provide that there shall be only one place where the court of Sesions Judge will hold its sitting. Rather it provides that it may hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may specify. It is apparent, therefore, that the High Court is competent to fix more than one place where the Court of Sessions will hold its sitting. Of course, though the High Court will normally fix a place where by far and large the court of Sessions will hold its sitting, there may be circumstances necessitating the holding of the siting of the court of Session at a place other than its ordinary place of sitting. This is what precisely what has been done under the impugned notification. It is not, therefore, correct to say that since the ordinary place of sitting of the Court of Mr. Mahesh Chander is at a place other than at Tihar Jail, High Court could not have specified Tihar Jail as a place where Mr. Mahesh Chander will hold his Court for the trial of the particular case. In this Mr. Gurcharan Singh relies on 1976 Criminal Law Journal page 521 Visheshwar Pathari and Ors. Vs. State where a direction was given that the trial shall take place in open Court and not in Jail where it was being held. But the facts of that case were totally different. A reading of the authority, however, goes against the petitioner. The discussion is in para 9, from where it would appear that State sought justification for trying the case in jail by seeking to invoke the letter of request sent by the State Government to the High Court. But then the letter written by the High Court to the District Judge was only to the effect that he was directed to transfer the cases to Senior Additional and Direct Sessions Judge and to. direct them to try the case expeditiously and to do other work only when they were free. That is why the Court concluded that "there is no direction that the cases be tried in jail". and therefore the trial in jail was not proper till a clear notificati