Provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution.

This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the punishments prescribed under section 307, Indian Penal Code, are uncostitutional and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated by the petitioner that a case under section 307, Indian Penal Code, was registered by the State of Andhra Pradesh the 1st respondent, in crime No. 1 of 1983 of the Kanchikacherla Police Station in connection with an accident which is alleged to have taken place on 3rd January, 1983 at 10 p. m. in the Poonavaram village. In the said case the petitioner Jasti Punnarao has been implicated as an accused. Charge sheet has also been filed and the matter is pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in S. C. No. 115 of 1983. Under section 307, Indian Penal Code, two types of punishments are prescribed, the first being imprisonment for life or alternatively ten years R.I. and fine. No definite guidelines are prescribed by the Code as to when either of the sentences can be imposed, which leaves unfettered discretion with the Presiding Officer.

3. The petitioner further stated that the Code of Criminal Procedure by section 9, provides for the appointment of Sessions Judges, Additional and Assistant Sessions Judge's to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. The difference between the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge as prescribed under section 28 of the Code is that while Sessions Judge or Additional Session Judge can pass any sentence authorised by law, the Assistant Sessions Judge cannot pass any sentence exceeding imprisonment for ten years. By virtue of the powers conferred by the Code, the Sessions Judge would distribute the work among the Additional and Assistant Sessions Judge. There are no definite rules regarding the distribution of work. In such a case, it is just a chance whether a case in which the charge-sheet under section 307, Indian Penal Code, is to the posted before the Additional Sessions Judge or the Sessions Judge or before the Assistant Sessions Judges. Sometimes such cases are posted before Assistant Sessions Judge and at times before the Additional Sessions Jaddges. Such being the situation, an accused person like the petitioner is left to be vagaries of chance, science it is the chance that decides that the should face the trial before a Judge who has power to impose the penalty of life imprisonment or before a Judge who can only impose a penalty of 10 years imprisonment and fine for the same offence. Both the punishments, however, are sanctioned by the Indian Penal Code, for the offence under section 307, It is further stated that since his case is posted before the Additional Sessions Judge but not before an Assistant Sessions Judge, leaves him exposed to a larger punishment if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that he is guilty. The prescription of different punishments for the same offence is discriminatory and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and21 of the Constitution. He has no other alternative remedy except to file the present writ petition.

4. No counter-affidavit is filed. But the learned Public Prosecutor addressed his arguments contradicting the above allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two points for consideration. The first point relates to the constitutional validity of section 307, Indian Penal Code, in so far as it prescribes two types of punishments for the same offence, and the second relates to the power of the Sessions Judge to allot the cases to Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel sum its that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to retransfer the matter to the Sessions Court by the Assistant Sessions Judge when