Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.N.Bakshi, J.
P.Sridhar
Versus
Uttar Pradesh
Decided On : 23 April 1975
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 350 - DE NOVO TRIAL - SESSIONS JUDGE - TRANSFER - SUCCESSOR-IN-OFFICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO BE TRIED BY JUDGE WHO HAS HEARD THE WHOLE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, P. Sridhar, filed a criminal complaint against the opposite party, Mata Prasad, for offenses under Sections 177, 408, and 418 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After an inquiry, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. The Sessions Judge transferred the case to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri L. S. P. Singh. The trial commenced before Sri Singh, and the evidence of the complainant and one other witness was recorded. Sri Singh was subsequently transferred from Rae Bareli to Unnao, and Sri J. P. Sinha took charge as the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner objected to a de novo trial before Sri Sinha, arguing that the case should be continued from the stage it had reached before Sri Singh. Sri Sinha rejected the petitioner's application, relying on an alleged order from the High Court directing a de novo trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order of Sri J. P. Sinha was not maintainable and must be set aside. The court found that there is no provision for a de novo trial in the court of Session in the Criminal Procedure Code and that the trial should be continued from the same stage at which it was left by Sri L. S. P. Singh. The court also held that the principle of natural justice requires that "he alone may decide who has heard the evidence" and that a Sessions Judge who has recorded the evidence of witnesses in part is subsequently transferred, it is incumbent upon his successor-in-office to conduct the trial de novo.
Issues: 1. Whether a de novo trial is permissible in a Sessions trial when the Sessions Judge who has recorded the evidence of witnesses in part is subsequently transferred? 2. Whether the principle of natural justice requires that an accused person be tried by a Judge who has heard the whole of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there is no provision for a de novo trial in the court of Session in the Criminal Procedure Code and that the trial should be continued from the same stage at which it was left by the previous Sessions Judge. 2. The court held that the principle of natural justice requires that "he alone may decide who has heard the evidence" and that a Sessions Judge who has recorded the evidence of witnesses in part is subsequently transferred, it is incumbent upon his successor-in-office to conduct the trial de novo.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of Sri J. P. Sinha and directed that the trial be continued from the same stage at which it was left by Sri L. S. P. Singh.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 432, Cr. P. C.
( 2 ) A criminal complaint was filed by P. Sridhar, in his capacity as Branch Manager of U. P. Machinery Company, against the opposite party No. 2 Mata Prasad, in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Rai Bareli, on 9-9-1971 for the commission of offences under Sections 177, 408 and 418, I. P. C. After enquiry the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli on 11th December 1972. The Sessions Judge transferred it to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge Sri L. S. P. Singh (S. T. No. 178 of 1972, State v. Mata Prasad ). The trial commenced before Sri Singh on 29th/30th May, 1973. The petitioner P. Sridhar was examined before Sri L S. P. Singh on 23-71973 as P. W. 1 Vinod Chand was also examined on 23-7-1973 as P. W. 2 but his cross-examination continued on 24-7-1973. 1st August 1973 was the next date fixed in the case for evidence.
( 3 ) IT appears that in the meantime, much prior to the date fixed, Sri L. S. P Singh, Additional Sessions Judge was ordered to be transferred from Rai Bareli to Unnao. Sri J. P. Sinha took charge from him as Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli.
( 4 ) IT appears that on 4th September 1974 a letter was sent by Sri B. D. Srivastava, Assistant Registrar, High Court, Allahabad to the District Judge, Rai Bareli-on a query being made by the letter-to the effect that Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1972 State v. Mata Prasad be tried de novo by the successor of Sri L. S. P. Singh. The petitioner objected before Sri J. P. Sinha for a de novo trial. His contention was that the case should be tried in the same continuation from the stage to which it had reached in the court of Sri L. S. P. Singh.
( 5 ) IT appears that on 9th November 1974 Sri Sinha rejected the application filed by the petitioner embodying the aforesaid objections in the following words:
In view of the order of the Honble High Court dated 31st August 1974 the present application is not maintainable and is hereby rejected. Sd. J. P. Sinha 9-11-74.
( 6 ) THE petitioner has contended that a copy of the order dated 31st August 1974 alleged to have been passed by the High Court has not been supplied to him. He alleges further that no such order has been passed by the High Court in any judicial proceeding and if any administrative order has been passed, it would be of no consequence and would not be binding upon the Sessions Judge,
( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of Mata Prasad opposite party No, 2, it is averred as follows:
Paras 7 and 8 are not disputed. After the transfer of Sri L. S. P. Singh Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli a request was moved to the Honble High Court for retaining Sri L, S. P. Singh in Rae Bareli on which the Assistant Registrar informed that it was not possible to keep him in the district and part-heard trial could be tried de novo.
( 8 ) THE admitted position, therefore, appears to be that the order of Sri J. P. Sinha dated 9th November, 1974 was based upon the instruction which had been sent by the Assistant Registrar of the High Court to the effect that the part-heard trials left by Sri L. S. P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge should be tried de novo by his successor Sri J. P. Sinha. ( 9 ) THE petitioner contends that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to interfere with the judicial matters and to direct the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of a case pending before him in a particular manner. He submits that that was. clearly a question of law which should have been decided by the Court concerned and the Sessions Judge should not be guided in his decision by the administrative instructions sent by the Assistant Registrar.
( 10 ) I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1972 had proceeded in part and the evidence of the complainant P. Sridhar and one other witness Vinod Kumar had been recorded before Sri L. S
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
