1987 (2) TMI 518 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural Irregularity in Transfer of Case
2. Jurisdiction and Powers of Sessions Judges
3. Application of Sections 462 and 465 Cr.P.C.

Summary:

Procedural Irregularity in Transfer of Case:
The appeals were preferred by the State of Karnataka against the High Court of Karnataka's judgment, which set aside the conviction of the respondents and remanded the cases for retrial. The High Court observed that the Sessions Case No. 35 of 1980 was initially pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges and recorded the plea. However, after the City Civil Courts Act came into force in November 1980, the case was shown as pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and later, evidence was recorded by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The High Court found no order of transfer u/s 407 Cr.P.C. and concluded that the trial was irregular.

Jurisdiction and Powers of Sessions Judges:
The Principal Sessions Judge has the authority u/s 194 Cr.P.C. to make over a Sessions case for trial to any Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court assumed that the case could not be transferred after the plea was recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, based on Sec. 409 clause 2, which restricts withdrawal of cases after the trial has commenced. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Principal Sessions Judge could have transferred the case through general or special orders, and the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the case.

Application of Sections 462 and 465 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 465 Cr.P.C., a finding or sentence by a competent court cannot be reversed due to procedural irregularities unless it results in a failure of justice. Similarly, u/s 462 Cr.P.C., errors in territorial jurisdiction do not invalidate proceedings unless they cause a failure of justice. The Supreme Court found no evidence of prejudice or failure of justice in the High Court's judgment or in the arguments presented. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the direction for retrial, remitting the appeals back to the High Court for disposal on merits.