BHUBAN CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has raised a question of law of great significance and the question is : Whether the trial, in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge, of a person, who is an accused of an offence, triable exclusively by a Court of Session, shall stand vitiated if the case has not been made over to him, by general or special order, of the Sessions Judge for trial or if the High Court has not, by special order, directed the Additional Sessions Judge to try the case ? This question, in turn, rise to another important question and the questiuon is : Whether the expression 'Court of Session', occurring in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Code), shall, always and invariably, mean the Sessions Judge alone and not Additional and/or Assistant Sessions Judge or does the expression 'Court of Session' means and includes, unless the context otherwise requires, not only" the Sessions Judge, but also the Additional and the Assistant Sessions Judges. Yet another question, which this revision has raised, is : What is the difference between a Sessions Judge, on the one hand, and Additional Sessions Judge and/or Assistant Sessions Judge, on the other ?

(2.) Before making any endeavour to answer the questions posed above, it is apposite that the material facts and various stages, which have given rise to this revision, may be taken note of :- (i) A charge-sheet was filed, in Lumdingiri Police Station Case No. 73(7)/2004 (corresponding to GR Case No. 240(S)/2004, under Section 376, IPC, against the present petitioner as accused, whereupon Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chillong, committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ad hoc), Shillong, commonly known as Fast Track Court. On receipt of the case record, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, passed an order, on 11-4-2006, directing issuance of summons to the accused. The accused accordingly appeared in the Fast Track Court and when the case was taken up for consideration of charge, it was contended, on behalf of the accused, that the trial of the accused by the learned Fast Track Court is in violation of the provisions of Sections 193 and 194 of the new Code inasmuch the case ought to have been committed, in terms of the provisions of Section 209 of the new Code, to the Court of Sessions Judge and since the case has been directly committed to the Fast Track Court, the learned Fast Track Court has derived no jurisdiction to try the accused, for there is no order by the learned Sessions Judge, Shillong, making over the case for trial to the Fast Track Court. As this objection was turned down by order, dated 29-11-2006, passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, the accused has impugned the order, dated 29-11-2006, aforementioned, in this revision, seeking interference by this Court.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. T. Baidya, learned P. P., Meghalaya. 1 have also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.