CHHARHINDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Confronted with a piquant as well as a peculiar situation, the accused person who is in custody, has approached this Court for being released on bail.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused person in G.R. Case No. 491 of 1994 registered under sections 451, 294, 341, 323,354,506, Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jaipur. The petitioner had been released on bail. Being directed, the bailor produced the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, on 15-3-1996. The petitioner prayed for continuance on the same bail. On that day, there was no Additional Sessions Judge at Jaipur as the previous incumbent had been relieved and the successor had not joined The Magistrate who was in routine charge of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for bail on the ground that he had no power to deal with the case under the Act and remanded the accused to the custody. The petitioner knocked at the door of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, praying for being released on bail. The Sessions Judge, Cuttack, referred to the Notification dated 6-10-1995 of the State Government issued under section 14 of the Act declaring the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, as Special Court under the Act to try cases within the local limits or Revenue District of Jaipur and the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, as Special Court in respect of area covered under Revenue Districts of Cuttack and Jagatsinghpur, and opined that he had no power to deal with the matter. He relied upon the decision reported in Udhab alias Udhah Charan Kaur and another v. Cora Bindhani wherein it was held that under the Act the Court of Session being declared as the Special Court is the Court of original jurisdiction for the purpose of cognizance as well as for trial. Accordingly, he left the petitioner to his fate. Hence this petition before this Court.

(3.) Section 14 of the Act reads as follows: 14 Special Court- For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.T A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that only a Special Court as specified under section 14 of the Act can try an offence under the Act In view of the notification of the Government, it is quite clear that the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Act within Jaipur Revenue District and similarly, the Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Cuttack, has power to try cases under the Act in Cut tack and Jagat Singh Revenue Districts. If the question of trial would have orison, the observation of the Sessions Judge would have been unimpeachable. But the question here is exercise of power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Section 439(l)(a) of the Code, which is relevant for the purpose, is extracted herein below: 439. Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Sec. 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the special power of the High Court or the Court of Session regarding bail is not confined to cases exclusively triable by the High Court itself or the Court of Session, as the case may be. In other words, even if a case is not triable by the Court of Session, it can release on bail any accused person in custody. It is axiomatic that the High Court can exercise such power within its territorial jurisdiction and similarly, the Court of Session can exercise such power within its territorial jurisdiction. Court Of SessionT is established under section 9(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the State Government to establish a Court of Session for every Sessions Division. Section 9(3) empowers the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Undisputedly, the newly constituted Revenue District of Jaipur continues to be a part of the Cuttack Sessions Division and as such for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Sessions Judge continues to be Judge incharge of Cut tack Sessions Division. The fact that Additional Sessions Judge have been appointed in erstwhile subdivisions such as Jaipur and Kendrapara, which have been subsequently declared as Revenue Districts, does not in any way whittle down the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, emanating from section 9 of the Code. As already observed, the power to grant bail under section 439 has nothing to do with the jurisdiction to try a case. In such view of the matter, the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, was not justified in declining to exercise power under section 439 of the Code on the ground that he had no authority to try the case.