Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
C. Ganesan - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Q-Branch CID, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 25645 of 2018
Decided on : 22-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Pugalenthi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The gravity of the offence can warrant the transfer of a case to a higher court for trial, even if the lower court has jurisdiction to try the offences.
Headnote:
TRANSFER - Criminal Original Petition - Section 120-B, Section 20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Court, the gravity of the offence, and the power to impose sentence, ultimately ordering the transfer of the case to the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer the trial of a case pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tambaram, Chennai, to the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai, citing lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the gravity of the offence warranted trial by a Court of Session or an Additional Court of Session, and ordered the transfer of the case to the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Court, gravity of the offence, and power to impose sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Assistant Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to try the offences but lacked the jurisdiction to impose a sentence exceeding ten years. It also emphasized that the gravity of the offence warranted trial by a Court of Session or an Additional Court of Session.
Final Decision: The transfer application was allowed, and the case was transferred from the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Tambaram, to the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to direct that the trial of S.C. No.90 of 2013, which is pending before the Sub Court, Tambaram, Chennai, be transferred to the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in S.C. No.90 of 2013 before the Assistant Sessions Judge (Sub Judge), Tambaram, Chennai, for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for brevity “the ULPA”) and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short “the ESA”). While so, this Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. At the outset, it is worth pointing out that this is the second round of petition filed before this Court in respect of transfer of S.C. No.90 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, Chennai, the first transfer application being Crl.O.P.No.3758 of 2017, filed by co-accused by name Jesuraja, which was dismissed by this Court on 06.07.2018. Strangely, the petitioner has not disclosed this fact in his petition.
4. Crl.O.P. No.3758 of 2017 was filed by co-accused Jesuraja on the premise that the trial in S.C. No.90 of 2013 was pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Tambaram, Chennai, whereas, in reality, the case is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Tambaram, Chennai, there being no Additional Sessions Court in Tambaram. The Registry, while numbering Crl.O.P. No.3758 of 2017, should have noticed that there is no Additional Sessions Court in Tambaram. Jesuraja, who is an accused in the case before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tambaram, has misled the Registry and this Court by contending that the case is pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Tambaram.
5. Mr. P. Pugalenthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through Classification II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, submitted that the trial for the offence under Section 20 of the ULPA and Section 5 of the ESA can be conducted only by the Court of Session and not by the Assistant Sessions Court and therefore, the trial by the Assistant Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. He further contended that the case should be tried only by the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Poonamallee, Chennai and prayed for transfer of S.C. No.90 of 2013 to the said Court.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. At this juncture, it is apropos to point out that a Division Bench of this Court, in M. Manimuthu vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai and Others [2018-2-LW (Crl.) 26], has traced the history of the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases at Poonamallee and Coimbatore and has also considered the circular issued by the Registrar General in this regard. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has clearly held that a regular Sessions Court does have the jurisdiction to try such cases and that the Special Courts for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases at Poonamallee and Coimbatore are yet another Additional Sessions Court and cases can be made over by the Principal District and Sessions Judge under Section 194 Cr.P.C. immediately after the committal. Therefore, the second submission of Mr. Pugalenthi that the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases only can try the case in S.C. No.90 of 2013, cannot be countenanced. In other words, the case in S.C. No.90 of 2013 can be tried by the Additional Sessions Court at Chengelpet as well by the Special Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases at Poonamallee.
8. In the case at hand, after investigation in Cr. No.741 of 2011, the Crime Branch CID filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No.6 of 2012. This cannot be faulted at all. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram,
