2015 (3) TMI 1327 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for transfer of appeals on the file of the learned IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai - Jurisdiction - powers and rights of Sessions Judge - power of the Sessions Judge to recall or make over cases to other Additional Judges - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Whether the words, Criminal Court referred in Section 408(1) Cr.P.C., means a lower or subordinate Court to a Sessions Judge? - Whether the words Criminal Court in Section 408(1) Cr.P.C., includes the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, also? Held that - Under the Constitutional Scheme, I am empowered to decide, a question of law, independently of what the other High Courts, have decided and for that matter, the decisions of the other High Courts, may have a persuasive value and they do not a binding precedent. It is true that there must be certain degree of certainty in the law, to be interpreted and applied to all the persons, to which, the Constitution of India, extends, but that principle, does not mean that a High Court is bound by the decision of another High Court, whether it is of the same strength or of a higher composition. No doubt, Judicial Precedents, across the country should maintain uniformity, and that there should be harmony in deciding a point of law, to be followed, but that does not mean that a High Court cannot decide a question of law, on its own, but have to simply follow the decision, decided by another High Court. In a given case, when a Central law is interpreted, every High Court is empowered to independently consider, the question of law, dehors the decisions of other High Court. Power is conferred on the Sessions Judge in Sub-Section (1) of Section 408 Cr.P.C., to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court, in the same Sessions Division and such power can be exercised, only for the reasons, stated in sub-Section (2) of Section 408. If the Sessions Judge, deems it expedient for the ends of Justice, to transfer any particular case, from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court, in his Sessions Division, either on the report of the lower Court or on the application of the party interested or on his own initiative and if the words, criminal Court have to be meant to be inclusive of an Additional Sessions Court also, then the Section 408, has to be read, as conferring powers on the Sessions Judge, to withdraw any case, even after the commencement of the trial of a case - As per Section (2) of Section 409, a Sessions Judge may withdraw, trial of a case or hearing of an appeal, from the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, only before the commencement of the trial of a case or hearing of an appeal. Now it is the case of the petitioners that the Sessions Judge, in exercise of the his powers, under Section 408 Cr.P.C., can transfer a case or an appeal, even after the commencement of trial or hearing of an appeal, on the application of a party interested, if it is expedient for the ends of justice. If the principle, what cannot be done directly by the Sessions Judge, in exercise of his administrative powers, under Section 409(2) Cr.P.C., cannot also be done indirectly by the Sessions Judge, under Section 408 Cr.P.C., is applied, then the Sessions Judge, cannot transfer the trial of a case or hearing of an appeal, from one Additional Sessions Judge, to another, within his Sessions Division. In Section 408 Cr.P.C., the Legislature has used the words, any particular case , from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court, in his Sessions Division and whereas, in Section 409 Cr.P.C., when the Sessions Judge, exercises the administrative power, the words, any case or appeal , are employed. Thus, there is an inbuilt restraint in Section 409(2) Cr.P.C., in exercise of the power conferred on the Sessions Judge and he cannot recall or withdraw any case or appeal, after the commencement of the trial or hearing of an appeal, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge and that is why, the Legislature is cautious in stating that such power can be exercised, at any time, before the trial of the case or hearing of the appeal - The expression any particular case used in Section 408(1) Cr.P.C., should be given its natural meaning and effect. The words criminal Court in Sub-Section (1) of Section 408 Cr.P.C., must be read in the context in which it is explained in sub-Section (2) of the same Section, i.e., lower Court and in such circumstances, it can comprehend that, that the words, Criminal Court, refers only to a lower Court and not to a Court of equal jurisdiction. Though the words Criminal Court at the first blush, may appear to mean all the criminal Courts, within the Sessions Division of a Sessions Judge, but a close scrutiny of sub-Section (2) of Section 408 Cr.P.C., would make it clear that there is no obscurity and vagueness. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court, on the interpretation of statutes or the Section, this Court is of the humble opinion that a Section or any part in the section, has to be read, as a whole and each word, as a whole, used in Section has to be given its meaning to the context, in which, it is used. Each word employed in the legislation has to be given the plain, literal and grammatical meaning and Courts are not empowered to delete or substitute the same, by way of interpretative process. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the opening sentence of sub-Section (2) of Section 408 Cr.P.C., ie., on the report of the lower Court or in particular, the use of the words, lower Court , is illogical to the context, in which, sub-Section (1) to Section 408 Cr.P.C., is enacted by the Legislature, in the matter of transfer of a case, i.e., from a Criminal Court to another Criminal Court. By legal fiction, the Sessions Court can, at best, (1) transfer any particular case from a Criminal Court, subordinate to its authority, to an equal, subordinate Court or (2) if such case, is pending on the lower Court, to any superior Court, and (3) not a case pending in the Court, exercising equal jurisdiction. - Powers conferred on the High Court, under Section 407 Cr.P.C., cannot be imported to Section 408 Cr.P.C., not conferred on the Sessions Judge, by High Court. By legislative process, the Sessions Court can only stay the proceedings in the subordinate Court. The transfer applications filed by the revision petitioners, to transfer Appeal Nos. 142, 144, 176 and 177 of 2014, on the file of the learned IInd Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, are not maintainable in law - There is no manifest illegality in the impugned orders, warranting intervention. Revision Cases are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Filing of petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Transfer of cases and appeals under Sections 408 and 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
3. Binding nature of precedents from different High Courts.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
The respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, and 22. The petition was taken on file as M.C. No. 70 of 2013 by the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Pending this petition, M.P. No. 4523 of 2013 was filed under Section 19(1)(a)(c)(e) of the Act, seeking to restrain the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's possession of the shared household and from alienating the shared household without the court's leave.

2. Transfer of Cases and Appeals under Sections 408 and 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.):
The learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the prayer in M.P. No. 4523 of 2013, restraining the respondents from disturbing the possession and alienating the shared household. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals, which were pending before the learned IInd Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents then sought to transfer these appeals, citing the Sessions Judge's refusal to allow additional grounds and alleging bias. The petitions for transfer were filed under Sections 24 and 408 of the Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge, following the Full Bench decision in R. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar v. Rangammal, dismissed the transfer petitions, holding that the Sessions Judge has no power to transfer cases from one Additional Sessions Judge to another if the trial has commenced.

3. Binding Nature of Precedents from Different High Courts:
The petitioners argued that the decisions of other High Courts, which interpreted Section 408 Cr.P.C. to allow the transfer of part-heard cases, should be followed. However, the court emphasized that the decisions of other High Courts are only persuasive and not binding on the subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The court reiterated that the Madras High Court's decisions are binding on its subordinate courts.

4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Judicial Precedents:
The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 408 and 409 Cr.P.C. and concluded that the Sessions Judge's power to transfer cases under Section 408 is limited to cases pending in lower courts and does not extend to appeals or cases where the trial has commenced. The court also emphasized that the legislative intent must be gathered from the language used in the statute, and the words "any particular case" in Section 408 should be interpreted to mean cases pending in lower courts, not appeals or cases in courts of equal jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the criminal revision cases, holding that the transfer petitions filed by the revision petitioners were not maintainable in law. The court upheld the Sessions Judge's order, emphasizing the binding nature of the Madras High Court's precedents on its subordinate courts and clarifying the limited scope of the Sessions Judge's power to transfer cases under Section 408 Cr.P.C.