9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l also by reference. The facts which gave rise to these appeals were that about 2 A.M. on 9th April 1980 it was alleged that Kuppuswamy the present respondent stabbed Narayanaswamy who expired at 11 P.M., and also Ramu who expired at 8.05 P.M. and Sunil Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who expired at 2.30 A.M. on the next day. Sunil Kumar and his police party happened to go there in a van on hearing galata in the railway platform of the Cantonment railway station, Bangalore, and when Sunil Kumar caught hold of the wrist of the accused respondent. he somehow managed to slip out and stabbed him. PW 1 Ulaganathan, who was the Senior Trains Clerk, went and lodged the First Information Report Ex.P. 1. Investigation was taken up and after investigation chargesheet was filed. It is not necessary for us to go into these question as question involved in these appeals is merely a technical question pertaining to procedure and does not pertain to the merits of the matter. The accused persons were committed to the Sessions Court, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City and it appears that the Principal Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area, made over the Sessions case in exercise of his powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions contained in Sec. 409 clause 2. The High Court also proceeded on the assumption that there is no order of the Sessions Judge presiding over the Principal City Civil Court for allotment of this case to the Court of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The learned High Court also came to the conclusion that provisions contained in Sec. 465 also will not remedy the defect. Consequently the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions and directed remand for retrial of the cases. What appears from the judgment of the High Court is that after commitment this case i.e. Sessions Case No. 35 of 1980 was shown in the list of October 1980 as pending in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge as it was made over to that Court in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 194 by the Principal Sessions Judge and this also was inferred by the High Court from the fact that the II Additional Sessions Judge framed charges on 21.8.80 in this case and recorded the plea of the accused on the same day. After the coming into force of the City Civil Courts Act in November 1980, in the list this case was shown to be pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Ses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate. It is not disputed that the Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City has a Sessions Division and is presided over by a Principal Sessions Judge and has a number of Additional Sessions Judges. It is also not disputed that all the Sessions Judges sitting in this Division are notified as Sessions Judges for the Division and therefore it is also not disputed that all of them have jurisdiction to try a case arising out of the Sessions Division. Even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any lack of inherent jurisdiction. What has weighed with the High Court is that as the charge was framed by the II Additional Sessions Judge the case could not be transferred to the board of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge without an order of transfer by the High Court as it was observed that under Sec. 194 the case could not be withdrawn by the Principal Sessions Judge after commencement of the trial and this was inferred from the provisions contained in Sec. 409 clause 2. Sec. 194 reads as under: Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges to try cases made over to them:- An Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case arising out of the Sessions Division, the only objection which has prevailed with the High Court is that as charge was framed and plea was recorded by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge it could not have been withdrawn by the Principal Sessions Judge and made over to III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. It is not disputed that it was withdrawn and made over. In this view of the matter therefore the provisions contained it Sec. 465 are of some importance. The High Court, however, observed that provisions of Sec. 465 Cr.P.C. can not be made use of to regularise this trial. No reasons have been stated for this conclusion. Sec. 465 Cr.P.C. reads as under: Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity:- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter therefore reading Sec. 462 alongwith Sec. 465 clearly goes to show that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction merely either on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground of any irregularity of procedure an order or sentence awarded by a competent court could not be set aside unless a prejudice is pleaded and proved which will mean failure of justice. But in absence of such a plea merely on such technical ground the order or sentence passed by a competent court could not be quashed. It is not disputed that the plea of prejudice or failure of justice is neither pleaded nor proved. Not only that even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also did not suggest. any possibility of projudice or failure of justice. Under these circumstances therefore the view taken by the High Court does not appear to be correct in view of the language of Sec. 462 read with Sec. 465. The judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside. The direction of remand made by the High Court is also quashed. It is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
