The appointment of District Magistrates as Assistant Sessions Judges is valid if it is made in consultation with the High Court and if it is permissible to appoint District Magistrates by designation rather than by name.

RAMASWAMI GOUNDER, J. :- This revision is posted before this Bench as it was considered that grounds 6 and 7 taken in the Memorandum of the Criminal Revision Petition raised important questions. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam on a charge under S. 323, I. P. C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15. There was an appeal as against that conviction and sentence, heard by the District Magistrate, Kumbakonam, as Assistant Sessions Judge, and dismissed by him. This revision is filed against that order of dismissal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Magistrate. Under the old S. 407, Cr. P. C., any person convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate, II or III class, was allowed to appeal to the District Magistrate; but, by the amending Act XXVI of 1955, which came into force from 1-1-1956, that section was deleted and the old S. 408 amended, providing that any person convicted on a trial by a District Magistrate or any other Magistrate may appeal to the Court of Session; and S. 409 as amended provides that an appeal to the Court of Session shall be heard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge, provided that no such appeal shall be heard by an Assistant Sessions Judge unless the appeal is of a person convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate of second or third class.

It will therefore be seen that according to the amended provisions, the appeal against the conviction by Magistrates of the second or third class lay to the Court of Session, and such appeals could be heard either by the Sessions Judge or by an Assistant Sessions Judge. The result was that the appeals which were originally heard by the District Magistrate are now required to be heard by the Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge.

2. But, our State Government thought that notwithstanding the amendment taking away from the District Magistrates the power to hear appeals, those Magistrates should nevertheless be appointed as Assistant Sessions Judges and empowered to hear appeals under Ss. 408 and 409 as amended.

They accordingly published a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, G. O. Ms. 3617 (Home) dated 19-12-1955, appointing with effect from 1-1-1956 the District Magistrates of the various districts mentioned in column No. 1 as Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in the Court of Session in the Sessions divisions noted in the corresponding entry in column No. 2 and holding sittings at the places specified in the corresponding entries in column No. 3, and further directing that they shall hear appeals of persons convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate of second or third class exercising jurisdiction within the respective Sessions divisions.

It will be seen that items 11 and 12 of the table appended to that notification mentioned the District Magistrate, Tanjore, at Kumbakonam, in regard to Sessions divisions, West Tanjore and East Tanjore, with places of sitting at Kumbakonam and Negapatam respectively. It was in pursuance of this notification that, in the present case, the District Magistrate, Kumbakonam, heard the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction by the Sub-Magistrate, Kumbakonam, and dismissed the appeal. In the first place, it was contended that the appointment of a single Assistant Sessions Judge for two Sessions divisions was illegal (ground No. 7).

But this contention has utterly no force and completely ignores the specific provisions of S. 9, Cr. P. C. Under cl. (1) of that section, the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every Sessions division, and appoint a Judge of such Court; and cl. (3) provides that the State Government may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more such Courts.

In the face of these clear provisions, it would be futile to contend that the District Magistrate, Tanjore, could not be validly appointed Assist