Decided on December 11,1993

S.P. Of Police C.B.I. Appellant
Firozuddin Basheeruddin And Others Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



Thomas, J. - (1.)PETITIONER (Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Cochin Unit) prays for a direction that a sessions case now pending before the 2nd additional sessions court, Ernakulam, be tried by the 3rd or 4th additional sessions court, Ernakulam, as those courts have been created for trying cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI',. Learned single Judge before whom the petition came up felt that the question involved must be decided by a Division Bench. The case originated as crime No. 229/89 of Kasaragod Police Station. It relates to the death of one K. M. Hamsa and hence this case is described as "Hamsa murder case". The following points are not disputed: "Hamsa murder case' was investigated and charge sheeted by the CBI Pursuant to a direction issued by the Central Government under Sec. 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 with the consent of the State Government as provided in Sec. 6 of the said Act. The charge sheet in the case was laid before the court of a special magistrate at Ernakulam (in the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate) which court has been established for dealing with cases investigated by the CBI within the State of Kerala. The place of occurrence in "Hamsa murder case" (as per the prosecution case) is situate within the local limits of Kasargode Sessions Court. The said special magistrate committed the case to the court of Session, Ernekulam and the Sessions Judge made over the case to the 2nd additional sessions court, Ernakulam.
(2.)THE 3rd and 4th additional sessions court. Ernakulam are the two wings of the special sessions court created by the State Government for trial of cases investigated by the CBI. Those courts have been designated as 3rd and 4th additional sessions court since powers have been conferred on the judges concerned to function as regular additional sessions judges. Thus, the 3rd and 4th additional sessions courts have jurisdiction to deal with all cases made over to them by the sessions judge, Ernakulam, in addition to the powers to try the cases investigated by the CBI.
The question is whether 2nd additional sessions court, Ernakulam (before which the case is now pending) has jurisdiction to try the present case. Shri T. V. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the accused, contended that so long at the case was committed to the sessions court, Ernakulam it is open to the sessions judge to make over the case to any one of the additional sessions courts within Ernakulam sessions division and thus the 2nd additional sessions court has jurisdiction to try the case.

(3.)SHRI . K Kunhlrama Menon, Special Public Prosecutor appointed for the present case, disputed the aforesaid contention and submitted that it is not the committal order which determines the jurisdiction of she sessions court to try the case. According to him, the case can be tried only by 3rd or 4th additional sessions court which are specially empowered to try cases investigated by the CBI, though he did not admit that session court, Kasaragod has also the jurisdiction when a special court has been established to try such cases.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.