Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-This revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the venue of trials in criminal cases. The petitioner, a communist detenu in the Central Jail, Vellore, was charged along with others for alleged offences of causing simple hurt, etc., to the jail officials on 3rd August, 1949, within the precincts of the said jail while the jail officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties. As many as 23 charge sheets were filed against this detenu with regard to the alleged occurrence. In pursuance of a request by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Madras, that the trial of the petitioner and the other connected cases may be held in the recreation room of the Central Jail, Vellore, to which the public can be given access, the Government agreed to the proposal and directed the trial of the abovementioned cases as suggested by the Inspector-General of Prisons. The District Magistrate, after obtaining the approval of the High Court, Madras, issued a notice that the cases would be heard by him in the recreation room of the jail premises. The petitioner, thereupon, applied to the District Magistrate, North Arcot at Chingleput that the case should be tried in the regular court hall at Vellore and not in the recreation room in the jail premises. The District Magistrate held that there was no reason to shift the venue of trial to his regular Court and passed an order dismissing the application. Against the said order the present revision petition has been filed.

The relevant provision in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the question that is raised before us is section 352, Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as follows:

The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of enquiring into or trying any offnence shall be deemed an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them:

Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any enquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person’ shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court."

The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the holding of the trial within the jail premises is not legal as it would amount to holding the Court in the complainant’s place inasmuch as, in this case the complainants are the jail authorities, the offence arising out o certain acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and others within the jail premises against jail officials while they were on duty, and that such a trial in a place within the jail premises is not only not in accordance with law but would prejudice the petitioner by depriving him of a fair trial of the case. The language of section 352 clearly presupposes the power in the presiding Judge or Magistrate trying a criminal case to decide on the venue of trial and once he decided the place, that place where the Court is held must be deemed to be an open Court. The Judge or Magistrate hearing a criminal case has, therefore, to decide the place where the Court ought to be held. The only condition imposed is that, just like all courts of law, it should be accessible to the public; that place where the Court is held by the presiding Judge or Magistrate shall be a place where the public may have access, subject however to the condition that only such members of the public would be admitted as the place so selected could conveniently contain. The contention, therefore, of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proper procedure has not been observed by the District Magistrate in fixing the place of trial within the jail premises appears to be untenable. As the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Magistrate to select the place of trial, the Magistrate was competent to select, as in this case, the recreation room which, though within the jail compound, is strictly outside the jail premi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document