Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Gopi Nath and P. N. Bakshi, JJ.
PUNJAB SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 10/22/1982
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Transfer of part-heard sessions trials - Jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judge - Continuance of trial by successor Judge - Interpretation of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
Several transfer applications were filed before the High Court seeking the transfer of part-heard sessions trials from one Additional Sessions Judge to another on the ground that the Judge to whose court transfer was sought had heard it in part. The question before the Court was whether a Sessions trial commenced by an Additional Sessions Judge who continues to be Additional Sessions Judge in the same Sessions Division but whose designation has changed, should be concluded by him or by another Additional Sessions Judge who has been conferred the designation earlier possessed by the Additional Sessions Judge who had commenced the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a Judge who has commenced a trial possessing a particular designation, i.e., as Additional Sessions Judge No. II, and he has subsequently been conferred the designation of Additional Sessions Judge No. I, the Judge who succeeds him as Additional Sessions Judge No. II may not continue the trial commenced by his predecessor until the jurisdiction of the predecessor has ceased in the trial and the successor has such jurisdiction in the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether a Sessions trial commenced by an Additional Sessions Judge who continues to be Additional Sessions Judge in the same Sessions Division but whose designation has changed, should be concluded by him or by another Additional Sessions Judge who has been conferred the designation earlier possessed by the Additional Sessions Judge who had commenced the trial? 2. Interpretation of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 326, to enable a successor Judge to continue a trial from the stage left by his predecessor, two conditions must be satisfied - (i) that the first judge had heard and recorded the whole or part of the evidence and (ii) that he had ceased to exercise jurisdiction in the case. 2. The Court further held that the expression "ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Code points to the ceasing of jurisdiction in the inquiry or trial, and not to the designation of the officer.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the transfer applications in which the Additional Sessions Judge who had commenced the proceedings, and whose jurisdiction had not ceased in the matter, was sought to be transferred the cases and dismissed the transfer applications in which the Additional Sessions judge who had framed the charges only and whose jurisdiction had ceased by an administrative order passed by the High Court directing the cases to be tried by another Additional Sessions judge.
( 1 ) THESE are applications under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of sessions trials from the court of one Additional Sessions Judge to that of another Additional sessions Judge on the ground that the Judge to whose court transfer is sought had heard it in part. The applications raise a common question as regards hearing of part-heard Sessions cases, and have been referred to a Division Bench as a large number of such cases are pending in this court involving that question. These transfer applications shall accordingly be disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE question for decision is whether a Sessions trial commenced by an Additional Sessions judge who continues to be Additional Sessions Judge In the same Sessions Division but whose designation has changed, should be concluded by him or by another Additional Sessions Judge who has been conferred the designation earlier possessed by the Additional Sessions Judge who had commenced the trial.
( 3 ) IN Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 2015 of 1982, transfer has been sought of sessions Trial No. 194 of 1980, State v. Punjab Singh and others, pending in the court of Sri L. N. Rai, III Addl. Sessions Judge, to the court of Sri R. C. Gupta, II Addl. Sessions Judge, on the ground that charges had been framed in the case by Sri R. C. Gupta while he was III Addl. Sessions Judge but has now been designated as II Addl. Sessions Judge, and he had also passed orders for the appearance and examination of the witnesses before him, although no witness had been examined by him in the case. In this case, an order had been passed by the Administrative judge of this Court allotting this case to the file of Sri L. N. Rai, III Addl. Sessions Judge, in exercise of his administrative powers on a reference made by the Sessions Judge. Thus this case has gone to the file of Sri L, N. Rai on an order passed by the Administrative Judge.
( 4 ) IN Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 2462 of 1982, transfer is sought of Sessions Trial no. 1 of 1974, State v. Mool Chand. to the court of Sri P. C. Agrawal who earlier was X Addl. Sessions Judge and has now been designated as VII Addl. Sessions Judge, who has been appointed a Special Judge to try cases under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act, from the court of the present X Addl. Sessions Judge, who also is a Special judge, on the ground that Sri P. C. Agrawal had examined almost all the witnesses of fact in the case.
( 5 ) IN Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 4779 of 1972, transfer has been sought of sessions Trial No. 148 of 1980, State v. Kamla, pending in the court of Sri L. N. Rai, III Addl. Sessions Judge, to the court of Sri R. C, Gupta. II Addl. Sessions Judge, on the ground that charges had been framed by Sri R, C. Gupta in the case, and hence it had become part-heard. This case is on the file of Shri L. N. Rai under an administrative order passed by the administrative Judge.
( 6 ) IN Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 4811 of 1982, the applicants have prayed for the transfer of Sessions Trial No. 378 of 1980, State v. Bhola Nath and another, from the court of Sri brij Pal Singh, I Addl. Sessions Judge, to the court of Sri K. C. Bhargava, II Addl. Sessions judge, on the ground that Sri Bhargava, who earlier was the I Addl. Sessions Judge and has now been designated as II Addl. Sessions Judge, had heard the case and recorded the evidence of a large number of witnesses, and since he had done so as I Addl. Sessions Judge and Sri Brij Pal singh had subsequently taken over as I Addl. Sessions Judge and Sri K. C. Bhargava was designated as II Addl, Sessions Judge, the case was retained in the court of Sri B. P. Singh, and the same needed to be transferred to the court of Sri K. C. Bhargava. It may be observed that no specific order of either allotment of the case to the court of Sri Brij Pal Singh, I Addl. Sessions judge, or the transfer of the case to tha
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
