Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This petition raises a question of general importance as to scope of Section 10(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the right and jurisdiction of Sessions Judge in a given Sessions Division to transfer applications to another Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. The matter arises thus:

2. Mandla is a Sessions Division with headquarters at Mandla. The Sessions Judge sits at Mandla where one more Additional Sessions Judge funcitons. Recently, an Additional Sessions Judge has also been posted at Dindori which is a Tahsil place within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division Madla. By office order dated 7-7-1989, the Sessions Judge, Mandla, in exercise of powers under Section 10(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, directed that the bail applications and also applications for grant of interim stay arising out of the cases in Revenue Tahsil Dindori shall be filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori. After those applications are. heard, the cases be sent to Mandla for registration. The relevant part of the order reads as under:

"10. Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges.--

(3) The Sessions Judge may also make provision for the 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."

2-A. The petitioner, who addressed the Court himself, contends that in exercise powers under Section 10(3) of the Code, Sessions Judge can make over only urgent applications to an Additional Sessions Judge and that too when the Sessions Judge is either absent from the Sessions division or incapable of working. Since the impugned office order is in general terms and requires all bail applications and applications for staying certain orders of sentence to be filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, says the petitioner, that order is beyond the scope of Section 10(3) of the Code.

5. Question, however, is whether every time the application is made, the Sessions Judge should take a decision in terms of Section 10(3) to authorise the Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge or in their absence to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal of application or pass a general order in that regard. We are of opinion that issuance of general order should be made permissible. One of the reasons for taking such a view is the expeditious disposal of the application as the power itself has to be exercised for disposal of urgent applications. The time consumed in the making of such an application to and its disposal in terms of Section 10(3) by the Sessions Judge and then making over that application for disposal to the Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge who may not necessarily be posted at the same place where the Sessions Judge may sit (as in the present case) may at times cause considerable delay in disposal of that application and thus defeat the very purpose which the provision seeks to achieve. The underlying idea is that urgent applications should be disposed of quickly and without any delay. Any working method employed by the District Judge to achieve the purpose of the provisions must be upheld. If the Sessions Judge with the existing workload with him feels that he may not be able to take up the urgent applications immediately for disposal because of that work load, he may well issue general orders as has been done in the present case requiring such applications to be dealt with by the Additional Sessions Judge. We do not see any reason to think that making of provision for disposal of urgent application in terms of Section 10(3) should exclude presentation of that application initially before the Additional Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge provided the pre-requisite condition for exercise of that jurisdiction exist. The notification in question relates to the presentation of such urgent application for grant of bail or for stay before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori. Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Dindori has been recently established apparently for the reason that it was felt that urgent applications of the nature specified in the notification arising from Dindori Tahsil of Mandla district took considerable time for presentation and disposal of such applications at Dindori which is at distance of about 90 kilometers from Dindori and is only connected by road. The transport facilities are also not that efficient. During the rainy season, the two places Mandla and Dindori are practically inaccessible to each other. It is apparent that because of the inability to act on such applications to achieve the purpose of their expeditious disposal, that learned Sessions Judge Mandla in his wisdom has issued the order in question and we see no reason to hold that order as illegal or without jurisdiction or in contravention of provision of Section 10(3). The view that we have taken makes the provision more effective and workable and serves the cause of those who need immediate disposal of their applications for grant of bail or for suspension of sentence.