Summary
The case of the respondent-accused was committed to the Sessions Court, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City and made over under s. 194 Cr.P.C. by the Principle Sessions Judge for trial to the II Additional Sessions Judge who framed charges on August 21, 1980 and recorded the plea of the accused persons.
In the monthly statement of October, 1980 the case was shown pending on the board of II Additional Sessions Judge and listed for evidence. On November 17, 1980 the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act came into force and powers of Sessions were conferred on all the City Civil Judges under s.9(3) Cr.P.C. In the monthly statement prepared thereafter for November, 1980 the case was shown pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. However, the evidence in the case was recorded and the respondent accused convicted under s.302 and 332 IPC by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.In appeal and reference the High Court looked into the monthly statements of pending cases and observing that there was no order under s.407 Cr.P.C. transferring the case from the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge to the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, that as the charge was framed and plea recorded when the case was pending before the II additional Sessions Judge the case could not be withdrawn by the Principle Sessions Judge under s.409(2) after the commencement of the trial and allotted to any other Additional Sesssion Judge that there was no order of the Principal Session Judge under s. 194 transferring the case to the board of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and that the defect could not be remedied under s.465 Cr.P.C., quashed the conviction and directed remand for retrial. The State came in appeal to this Court.Allowing the appeal, the Court, 296HELD: 1.1 The view taken by the High Court was contrary to the language of ss.462 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the High Court could not, there- fore, be sustained. [304A]1.2 Reading s. 462 alongwith s.465 goes to show that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, merely either on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground of any irregularity of procedure an order of sentence award- ed by a competent court could not be set aside unless preju- dice is pleaded and proved, which will mean failure of justice. [303F-G]In the instant case, it is not found by the High Court that the Sessions Judge who tried the case arising out of the Sessions Division had no jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City has a Sessions Division and is presided over by a Principal Sessions Judge and has a number of Additional Sessions Judges. All the Sessions Judges sitting in this Division are notified as Sessions Judges for the Division and, therefore, all of them have jurisdiction to try a case arising out of the Sessions Division. the plea of prejudice of failure of justice is neither pleaded nor proved. Not only that, even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice. There was no suggestion either of any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice. The order passed by the 1II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge could not, therefore, be quashed. [302A-C]2. Section 462 Cr.P.C. even saves a decision if the trial has taken place in a wrong Sessions Division or Sub- Division or a district or other local area where the court has no territorial jurisdiction, and such an error could only be of some consequence if it results in failure of justice, otherwise no finding or sentence could be set aside only on the basis of such an error. Therefore, even if the trial before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge would have taken place in a Division other than the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for which III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is also notified to be a Sessions Judge, still the trial could not have been quashed in view of s.462. [303C-E]3.1 The scheme of s.409 indicates that the Sessions Judge had powers to withdraw any case and to allot it to any one of the Additional Sessions Judges. The Principal Ses- sions Judge of the Division under s. 194 had power to allot any Sessions case to any one of the Additional Sessions Judges of the Division. He could pass such orders either for individual cases or allot particular areas to particular Additional Judge of the Division. [299H; 300A]297 3.2 The III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge who tried the instant case apparently tried it as it must have been allotted to him. The Case must have been allotted to him as the distribution orders have not been sent for by the High Court nor have they been produced. If enquiries were made it might have been discovered that the case had been transferred in exercise of the powers under s. 194 by the Principal Sessions Judge. [300B-C]See the full content of this document
Extract
State Of Karnataka VS. Kuppuswamy Gownder
PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs.RESPONDENT: KUPPUSWAMY GOWNDERDATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1987BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J)BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J)DUTT, M.M. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 1354 1987 SCR (2) 295 1987 SCC (2) 74 JT 1987 (1) 512 1987 SCALE (1)353ACT: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss. 194, 409, 462 & 465: Sentence or order of competent Court--When to be quashed--Prejudice pleaded and proved-- Means failure of justice.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 823 Of 1981 Etc.From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.1981 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. A.NO. 215 of 1981.M. Veerappa for the Appellant.M.B. Lal (Amicus Curiae) K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,OZA, J. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka setting aside c...
See the full content of this document