Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), 4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under subsection (1) of section 407, except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand" rupees occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted.

7. Pertinently the emphasis of learned counsel for the defacto complainant in this context is upon clause (iii) of Section 407(1)(c) Cr.P.C., which reads that whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session, it has power to do so.

8. It is emphatical that with reference to the power of High Court three clauses i.e., clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) are incorporated in sub-section(1)(c) of Section 407, two with regards to the transfer of a criminal case and the other with regards to committal of a criminal case. Subject to the sub-section clause (ii) enjoins "That it may order transfer of a case or appeal or class of cases or appeals from a criminal court subordinate to its authority to any other such criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction", clause (iv) enjoins "That any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself"

cannot be confined only to a particular category of courts within the Sessions Division. Hence the word, "committal" as used in clause (iii) of Section 407(1)(c) Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the word "Transfer" as used in Section 408 Cr.P.C. In other words, the power of a Sessions Judge to transfer a criminal case from one criminal court to another criminal court within his Sessions Division cannot be curtailed by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 407 (1)(c) Cr.P.C., which deals with a different mode. The word, "committal" used in clause (iii) of Section 407 (1)(c) Cr.P.C. should be read in conjunction with the procedure laid down in Section 209 Cr.P.C. with regards to the committal of a criminal case, which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class to the Court of Session. When Section 407 deals not only with the power of High Court to transfer a criminal case from one criminal court to another criminal court subject to the question of jurisdiction to entertain the matter but it also deals with the power to order for committing a criminal case to the Court of Session, it is not appropriate to confine its power only to the question of committal restricting the amplitude of the Section to that extent only. If that is the case the provisions incorporated in the section about the power to transfer a criminal case would become redundant.

11. In fact in the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in C.H.Abdul Salam v Sameera (supra), it was observed as follows.

Section 407(1)(iii) of Cr.P.C. gives power to the High Court to direct the Magistrate Court to commit a case for trial to the Sessions Division for simultaneous trial with another Sessions Case pending in that Sessions Division. It is a wide power to be exercised in the interest of justice. Sessions Court has got power under Section 408 to transfer a particular case from a criminal court to another criminal court in that Sessions Division. Neither Section 408 nor any other provision in Cr.P.C. empowers the Sessions Court to call for a case from the Magistrate Court for trial to that Court without a committal order. A reading of Section 407(3) would make it clear that a power akin to Section 407(8) is not vested with the Sessions Court even though Sub-sections (3) to (7) and (9) of Section 407 were made applicable to Sessions Court. However, the question arising for considering is whether it is possible for the High Court to exercise that power before such an application is filed before the Sessions Court as held in Santhosh's case. The proviso to Section 407(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same Sessions Division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. It is settled law that before an application can be filed before the High Court for transfer of a case from one court to another court in the same sessions division one has to file an application before the Sessions Court and its rejection by the concerned Sessions Judge is a pre-condition (see Krishna Panicker v State of Kerala, 1981 Crl.LJ. 1973 (Ker.), Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. State of U.P. 1984 (2) Crimes 50 (All.) and Manindra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 1992 Crl. L.J. 1392 (Raj.) Section 408(1) of Cr.P.C. only gives power to the Sessions Judge to transfer a case pending in one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his Sessions Division. However, it does not give power to the Sessions Court to call for a case to that court from the Magistrate Court without formal Committal. Committal of a case from the Magistrate Court to the Sessions Court cannot be equated to transfer under Section 408(1) of Cr.P.C. In the case of a direction to commit a case from the Magistrate Court to Sessions Court the proviso is not a bar in exercising the power of the High Court conferred under Section 407(1)(iii) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, we are in perfect agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in State of Kerala v Annamma, 2003(2) KLT 763, we are unable to agree with the decision in Santosh v State of Kerala, 2006 (3) KLT