Madras High Court
The Additional District ... vs Unknown on 1 September, 2002
Author: A. Kulasekaran
Bench: A. Kulasekaran
JUDGMENT A. Kulasekaran, J.
1. The subject matter of suo motu revision is that the case in P.R.C. No. 7 of 1997 and 35 of 1999 for offences punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act were originally committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, who in turn made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judges of Nagapattinam and Mayiladuthurai respectively for trial and disposal. The Additional Assistant Sessions Judges have convicted the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- respectively. The accused in both the cases preferred appeals before the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, which was referred to this court and the same was taken as suo motu revision.
2. The question arising for consideration in this revision is
(i) Whether the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try and dispose of the cases relating to Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and
(ii) Whether an appeal would lie before the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate against the conviction by Additional Assistant Sessions Judges.
3. On the request of this Court, Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Senior counsel and Public Prosecutor appeared and submitted as mentioned below:-
Under Section 9(3) of Cr.P.C. the High Court can appoint Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge as the case may be to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Sessions, while so, a District Judge or a Principal Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge exercise the jurisdiction in a court of sessions in a co-ordinate manner. As such, the words "court of Sessions" employed in Section 3 of TNPPD Act not only means Sessions Judge appointed under Section 9(2) of Cr.P.C. but also Additional and Assistant Sessions Judge, appointed under Section 9 (3) of the Act. Hence, the disposal by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge was valid. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, the Principal Sessions Judge as well as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate have jurisdiction to entertain appeals.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the following Judgments in support of his case:-
i) 1981 SC 1473 (Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) wherein in Para-17 it was held thus:-
".....A person appointed as a Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge, would be exercising jurisdiction in the Court of Session and his judgments and orders would be those of the Court of Session. They would continue to be valid as the judgments and orders of the Court of Session, notwithstanding that his appointment to such Court might be declared invalid....."
In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge can exercise his jurisdiction in a Court of Sessions.
ii) (Abdul Mannan Vs. State of West Bengal) wherein in Para-4 it was held thus:-
4. Contention was raised in the courts below that the Additional Sessions Judge is not a Sessions Judge and that, therefore, he could not proceed with the trial. The contention was rejected and thus this appeal by special leave against the impugned order dated January 11 1989. Section 9(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 21 of 1974) (for short "the Code") enjoins the State Governments to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. It is made clear by sub-section (3) of Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Singular includes plural. Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under the Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to try the offences enumerated under the Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, is competent to proceed with the trial of the juvenile offenders. Even though at the relevant time the appellants were juveniles, by passage of time they no longer remained to be juvenile offenders. They are now in mid-thirties.
In this case, the Honourable Apex Court held that a Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge also.
iii) 1986 1 Andhra Law Times 20 (Yara Srinivasa Rao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh) wherein in Para-2 it was held thus:-
"....Since, I see no detriment being caused, if it is given a liberal interpretation in view of the definition U/sec. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defining the Sessions Court including to be presided by an Assistant Sessions Judge and, thereby, enabling the Assistant Session Judge also to have jurisdiction in such matters. I have no hesitation to hold that the Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try offences against the juvenile offenders under the A.P. Children Act....."
In the above case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Assistant Sessions has jurisdiction to try offences against Juvenile offenders in the context of the language employed in Section 9 of Cr.P.C.
iv) AIR 1931 Bombay 313 Special Bench (Lakshman Charji Narangikar Vs. Emperor) wherein in Page No.321 it was held thus:-
"....The Assistant Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge, and the Sessions Judge exercise co-ordinate or equal jurisdiction of a Sessions Court within the limits of the authority conferred on them by the Code, and are nevertheless different Courts each subordinate to the High Court."
In the above case, the Bombay High Court held that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge exercise co-ordinate or equal jurisdiction of a Sessions Court within the limits of the authority conferred on them by the code and are nevertheless different courts each subordinate to the High Court.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in common practice the cases relating to offences punishable under Section 376 and 307 of IPC, which are triable by court of sessions are invariably disposed of by the Assistant Sessions Judge, to whom the cases are made over. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to entertain the appeals.
6. Now, we look into the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant Article of Constitution of India as mentioned below:-
"Section 3 of TNPPD Act - No court inferior to that of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Court of Sessions shall try any offence punishable under this Act."
Section 9 of Cr.P.C.
(1) Court of Sessions - The State Government shall establish a Court of Ession for every sessions division.
(2) Every Court of session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.
(3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of session......"
Section 10 of Cr.P.C.
(1) Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges - All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judges in whose court they exercise jurisdiction.
(2) The Sessions Judge may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges (3) The Sessions Judge may also make provisions, for disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his absence or inability to act, by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application."
Sec. 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C. - Appeals from convictions:-
....
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person-
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by an Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.
Article 236 of Constitution of India - Interpretation -
(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge:...
7. A careful perusal of the provisions of the section 9 Cr.P.C. and Article 236 of Constitution of India would make it clear that the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge can exercise jurisdiction in a Court of sessions. The words employed in Section 3 of TNPPD Act namely "court of sessions" not confined with Sessions Judge alone, but also Additional and Assistant Sessions Judge, hence the disposal by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judges are valid.
8. Section 374 of Cr.P.C. provides
(i) the forum to which an appeal can lie
(ii) the order of sentence against which an appeal can lie.
Appeal from conviction by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or by any Court passing a sentence of more than seven years lies to the High Court. Appeals in all other cases mentioned in Sub-section 3 of Section 374 lie to the Court of Sessions. Where a sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge is imprisonment for less than seven years, appeal lies to the Sessions Judge. For example, when an accused is convicted under Section 307 or 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of less than seven years, appeal lies to Sessions Judge and not to High Court. Sub-section 3 of Section 374 provides generally for appeal to the Court of Sessions from conviction by Assistant Sessions Judge or Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. has to be read along with Section 10(1) and Section 381 of Cr.P.C. The word 'subordinate' employed in Section 10(1) of Cr.P.C. indicates that the Subordinate Court shall be under the administrative superintendence and control of the superior Court apart from such judicial control by way of appeal or revision as the case may be. It is evident that the Assistant Sessions Judge has no power, under the code to receive and admit an appeal direct from the appellant.
9. In this case, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is less than seven years as such the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to entertain the appeals.
Hence, both the questions are answered accordingly.