2010 (3) TMI 991 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant aggrieved by the notification No.184A dated 20th May, 2006 whereby the Patna High Court in exercise of administrative powers conferred under sub-section (6) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been pleased to decide that the premises of the District Jail, Siwan will be the place of sitting of the Court of Sessions for the Sessions Division of Siwan for the expeditious trial of Sessions cases pending against Md. Shahabuddin. Held that - Appeal dismissed. Although aforesaid issues were raised before us for challenging the legality and the validity of the three notifications which were issued by the respondents for holding the trial of cases pending against the appellant in one Sessions Division and for constituting and establishing two Special Courts i.e. the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge to try sessions cases pending against the appellant and the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class to try the cases pending against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, within the premises of the District Jail, Siwan, I find no merit and force in the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of the power under Section 9(6) and Section 11 of CrPC.
2. Validity of the notifications issued by the High Court and the State Government.
3. Requirement of hearing the appellant before issuing the notifications.
4. Whether the notifications were published in the Gazette.
5. Whether the trial inside the jail premises violates Section 327 of CrPC and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Validity of the notifications referring to the Bengal, Assam, and Agra Civil Courts Act, 1887.
7. Whether the power under Section 9(6) CrPC can be exercised for pending cases.
8. Whether the trial inside the jail premises constitutes an open court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of Power Under Section 9(6) and Section 11 of CrPC:
Section 9(6) of the CrPC divides into two parts: the first part confers power on the High Court to determine the place where the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sittings. The second part endows power on the Court of Sessions to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division with the consent of the prosecution and the accused. Section 11 of the CrPC allows the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, to establish Courts of Judicial Magistrates at specified places.

2. Validity of the Notifications Issued by the High Court and the State Government:
The High Court issued a notification on 20.05.2006 under Section 9(6) of the CrPC, notifying the premises of the District Jail, Siwan, as the place of sitting for the Court of Sessions for the expeditious trial of cases pending against the appellant. The State Government subsequently issued two notifications on 07.06.2006 to establish a Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and to hold its sitting inside the District Jail, Siwan. These notifications were issued in consonance with the provisions of law and were valid.

3. Requirement of Hearing the Appellant Before Issuing the Notifications:
The power of the High Court under Section 9(6) to notify a particular place or places where the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting is an administrative power and does not require compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem. The second part of Section 9(6), which requires the Court of Sessions to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of hearing, is not applicable in this case.

4. Whether the Notifications Were Published in the Gazette:
The notification dated 20.05.2006 was directed to be published in the next issue of the Bihar Gazette and was published on 16.08.2006. The appellant's contention that the notification was not supplied to him and not published in the Gazette was not raised in the writ petition or the appeal petition, and thus cannot be entertained at this stage.

5. Whether the Trial Inside the Jail Premises Violates Section 327 of CrPC and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution:
An 'open court' is a court to which the general public has a right to be admitted. Although the trial was conducted inside the jail premises, it was open to the public, and the press was allowed to attend. Therefore, there was compliance with Section 327 of the CrPC, and there was no violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

6. Validity of the Notifications Referring to the Bengal, Assam, and Agra Civil Courts Act, 1887:
The reference to the Bengal, Assam, and Agra Civil Courts Act, 1887, in the notifications does not invalidate them. The notifications were valid as they could be traced to a statutory power under the CrPC.

7. Whether the Power Under Section 9(6) CrPC Can Be Exercised for Pending Cases:
There is no reason why the power under Section 9(6) of the CrPC should not be applicable to pending cases. The notifications were issued to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases pending against the appellant, which is a necessary concomitant to the administration of justice.

8. Whether the Trial Inside the Jail Premises Constitutes an Open Court:
The trial inside the jail premises was conducted in an open court as the public and the press were allowed to attend. The appellant was represented by 38 advocates, and the proceedings were regularly reported in the press. Therefore, the trial was conducted in compliance with the requirement of an open court.

Conclusion:
The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The notifications issued by the High Court and the State Government are valid, and the trial of cases against the appellant in the District Jail, Siwan, can proceed in accordance with the law.