T R GANESHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the venue of trials in criminal cases. The petitioner, a communist detenu in the Central Jail, Vellore, was charged along with others for alleged offences of causing simple hurt etc. to the jail officials on 3rd August 1949 within the precincts of the said jail while the jail officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties. As many as 23 charge sheets were filed against this detenu with regard to the alleged occurrence. In pursuance of ft request by the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, that the trial of the petitioner and the other connected cases may be held in the recreation room of the Central Jail, Vellore, to which the public can be given access, the Government agreed to the proposal and directed the trial of the abovementioned cases as suggested by the Inspector General of Prisons. The District Magistrate after obtaining the approval of the High Court, Madras, issued a notice that the cases would be heard by him in the recreation room of the jail premises. The petitioner, thereupon, applied to the District Magistrate, North Accot at Chingleput that the case-should be tried in the regular court hall at Vellore and not in the recreation room in the jail premises. The District Magistrate held that there was no reason to shift the venue of trial to his regular Court and passed an order dismissing the application. Against the said order the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The relevant provision in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the question that is raised before us is Section 352, Criminal P. C., which runs as follows :

(3.) The decision in Mopherson v. Mcpherson, 1936 A. C. 177 : (105 L. J. P. C. 41) was relied upon in support of the proposition that the hearing of the case must be in open Court accessible to the public. In that decision which arose out of a divorce action, the trial took place during the luncheon interval in the Judge's law library in the court house and not in the regular Courts of the court house and, at the time, neither the Judge nor the counsel were robed. The Judge was attended by the assistant clerk and by an official shorthand writer and before taking his seat he announced that he was sitting in open Court. The only other persons present throughout the proceedings were the petitioner and his two witnesses, the action being undefended. The access to the Judge's law library was through a double swing door in the wall of a public corridor. One wing of that corridor was always fixed, the other, although swinging close, was usually unfastened. On the fixed wing was a brass plate with the word "Private" in black letters. It was held that even though the actual exclusion of the public resulted only from the word "Private" on the outer door, the Judge on the occasion of the divorce trial, albeit unconsciously, was denying his Court to the public in breach of their right to be present and, therefore, it was held that the resulting decree nisi and absolute which were passed in pursuance of that trial were avoidable. Lord Blanesburgh delivering the judgment of the Privy Council observed as follows at p. 197 :