SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial is held up, so I would like to dispose of the application finally, as only law points are involved and I have also been addressed on all such points.

(2.) THE respondent's Counsel in support of his case relied upon the case of Municipal Board v. Bhim Singh,, 1962 AWR 199 that in case of court of sessions the Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge excercises similar powers under section 9 (6) CrPC. Reliance has also been placed upon the case reported in Visheshwar Pathak v. State, 1976 CrLJ 521. In that case also the implications of Section 327 read with Section 9 (6) CrPC were considered and it was held that the Sessions Judge can give directions and pass suitable orders for the place of trial.

(3.) IN the result, the application is allowed to the extent aforesaid and both the orders dated 20-7-1983 of the Sessions Judge and 13-4-1983 of the V Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and the court, where the trial is pending, is directed to consider the matter afresh and decide it in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within a month.