2004 Supreme(Guj) 501

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.BUCH, D.H.WAGHELA, R.K.Abichandani
Babubhai Bachubhai Bhabhor - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc.4817 of 2004
Decided On : 08/12/2004

Headnote:

Code of Criminal procedure - Sections, 389 (1) , 437 (5) / 439 (2) ,438 and 439 - Justice for considering whether the procedural directions given by the learned Single Judge in the present application by order dated should be followed and all the subsequent bail applications under Sections of the Code of Criminal procedure be notified before the appropriate bench as per the roster except the applications tiled under Section after the submission of charge-sheet whether the present practice of notifying the subsequent bail applications before the same Judge, who decided the earlier bail application of the accused, be continued to be followed the Chief Justice looking to the importance of the matter and also the fact that this question may pose problems in future has directed that the said question be for consideration and decision before this Bench - present miscellaneous Application that the petitioner had earlier filed in this Court miscellaneous Criminal Application before the filing of the charge-sheet which was rejected as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge. It also appears from the record that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section of the code before the Sessions Court after the charge-sheet was filed and that application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on by a reasoned order - It is recorded in paragraph of that order that the earlier application filed by the accused under Section was rejected - After the petitioners application under Section was rejected by the Additional Sessions judge the petitioner has filed the present application again under section before this Court for bail - Application came to be placed before the same learned Single Judge who had rejected the earlier application as withdrawn issued in compliance of the direction of the Chief justice - Held, Chief justice issued on on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in case (supra) and the aforesaid Circular stands modified accordingly flaw in the practice adopted by the Circular on the basis of the decisions of the Court in as modified on the basis of the decision in respect of the subsequent applications for cancellation under Sections and for temporary bail - Question referred to us, therefore, stands answered accordingly - Chief Justice to assign work to different Benches constituted by him - It is clear from the provisions of rules of the High court Rules notwithstanding anything contained in the sitting list Chief Justice may if he deems fit constitute special Benches or change the sittings during the term - It has never been in dispute that the Chief Justice assigns the work while constituting the benches and this is entirely his prerogative under the Rules - As held by the Supreme court in State reported in SCC the administrative control of the Court vests in the Chief Justice alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the high Court both judicial and administrative - Chief Justice is the master of the roster - He alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted; which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and is required to hear as also which Judges shall constitute division Bench and what work those benches shall do - Puisne Judges can only do that work which is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions - Judicial discipline clearly warranted adoption of such practice as a norm commended by the Supreme Court by issuing general orders in the form of a circular so that the law of the land as declared by the Apex Court on this aspect was uniformly followed. A provision on the basis of this norm that subsequent bail applications be placed before the same judge who rejected the earlier bail application would amount to assignment of such work by a general order to the judges who have decided the earlier bail applications, along with the work assigned in the current rosted - Assignment of work by general orders made by the Chief justice on the basis of the norms indicated by the Supreme Court has the same efficacy as that of specific assignment of other work in the current roster - Validity of the said norms adopted was never in issue before the Court releasing the present bail application from its board nor was there any lack of jurisdiction to hear the application - Refusing to entertain such cases which are required to be heard by the Judge by virtue of the general orders reflected in the Circulars issued on the directions of the chief Justice would stand on the same footing as refusal to do the work assigned in the roster undermining the right and power of the Chief Justice to distribute the judicial business which is his exclusive prerogative - Exercise of power by the chief Justice to assign business by general orders reflected in the Circular, as modified was clearly warranted by the decisions of the Court could have been questioned - Reference made under the orders of the Chief Justice stands answered accordingly. Application may now be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits, as may be directed by the Chief Justice - Reference answered accordingly.