Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.: --

This writ petition has been filed by Haseen Siddiqui @ Jahangir for issuing a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the administrative order dated 22.4.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as order dated 15.7.2013.

2. Heard Mr. R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA.

3. It has been mentioned in the memo of petition that trial of the case was going on in the said court after petitioners arrest on 29.11.2012 by A.T.S. U.P. Lucknow till 17.5.2013 when Learned A.C.J.M. VIII ordered for holding the trial of the petitioner's case in jail premises instead of its regular sitting at Civil Court, Lucknow. This order was passed in compliance to the Administrative Order of Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 24.4.2013. Order passed by Learned ACJM VIII was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 313/13 but in vain and petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. also met the same fate. This Hon'ble Court while disposing off the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has observed that order dated 17.5.2013 passed by ACJM VIII, Lucknow (Annexure 2) was based on administrative order dated 24.4.2013 for holding trial in jail premises, hence petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. There is no allegation of any terrorist activities against petitioner and he is being prosecuted for simply obtaining a Passport fraudulently and for similar act co-accused Mirza Arif Beg has been sentenced for 5 years only in a separate trial on 14.8.2013. The petitioner is neither a hard core criminal nor terrorist. His name does not find place in the list of 22 criminals having terrorist activities submitted by A.T.S. authorities to Session Judge, Lucknow and case of those 22 Criminals is being tried in jail premises. Sessions Judge, Lucknow has passed the order in Crl. Revision No. 313/13 based on Cl. No. 13/2008 (Admn.) dated May 19, 2008.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 9 and 9A Criminal Procedure Code prescribes sitting of the Courts of Session Judge and Section 11 of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes the place of sitting of Court of Magistrate. The circular letter dated May 19, 2008 has been issued for place of sitting of Courts of Sessions and not for Courts of Magistrate. Only State Government can change the place of sitting in respect of Magistrate Court and thus Sessions Judge, Lucknow was not empowered to pass the impugned order dated 24.4.2013 for shifting of place of trial from Civil Court to jail premises and administrative order dated 24.4.2013 is illegal and void and thus the order dated 17.5.2013 passed by ACJM towards an order dated July 15, 2013 passed by Sessions Judge are violative of the provisions of Section 11 of Code of Criminal Procedure and are illegal.

For ready reference Circular Letter No. 13/2008 Admin(G) Dated 19.5.2008, is reproduced below.

From: By Registered Post/E-Mail

Virendra Kumar Dixit, HJS,

Registrar General,

High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad.

To,

All the District Judges,

Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad.

Circular Letter No. 13 /2008 Admin (G) : Dated 19.5.2008

Subject: Trial of hardened criminal inside the jail premises.

Sir,

In a reference having been made by a District and Sessions Judge to the Hon'ble Court seeking permission for trial of the notorious hardened under trial prisoners inside the jail precincts on request of the Senior Prosecuting Officer based on the direction of the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District-Magistrate, upon consideration, the Hon'ble Court has resolved that a direction be issued to all the District and Sessions Judges that on such request being received by them they are supposed to take decision in their discretion in the matter in consonance with the provision made in Section 9(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by U.P. Act 1 of 1984 which provides that where it appears expedient to do so for consideration of internal security or pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document