M.Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) BY this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant, who is facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 1978, in a case under Section 307, IPC and 25 Arms Act, applied that a direction be given for the expeditious disposal of Sessions Trial No. 322 of 1978 by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge.
(2.) IT would appear that the hearing of this Sessions trial commenced and continued in the court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. At that time Sri J. B. Singh was presiding in that Court. Some evidence was also recorded. Thereafter Sri J. B. Singh took over as III Additional District & Sessions Judge and Sri S. L. Adarsh succeeded him as IV Additional District & Sessions Judge presiding over the Court in which the sessions trial is pending. Further, a supplementary affidavit has been filed to the effect that the incident itself is alleged to be of 8 -7 -1975, consequently, the proceedings will be governed by the new Code of Criminal Procedure. As aforesaid the hearing had already commenced in the Sessions Trial before the move of Sri J. B. Singh. When that is the position, the provisions of Section 409(2) Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted and it is not even open to the Sessions Judge to now recall the case from the court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge. Under Section 326 new Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by U.P. Government, the word 'Judge' has also been added preceding the word 'Magistrate' by the State Government. The position under Section 326 Code of Criminal Procedure thus, is that whenever any Judge has heard any sessions trial and recorded evidence and is thereafter succeeded by another Judge, the latter is to proceed with the trial from that stage and can act upon the evidence already recorded and the earlier proceedings conducted by his predecessor. This has been done with a view to avoid fresh trial in case other Judge succeeds, unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. Before such amendment either a fresh trial had to be conducted or a notification had to be made empowering the Judge, who had opened the trial, to exercise such powers in respect of that particular case in that district. The position, thus, is that the Judge succeeding the earlier Judge can continue the proceedings and has to proceed with trial.
(3.) IN the light of the above facts, Circular letter No. 34 (Admin. A) dated March 26, 1980, incorporating such principles had been issued. The only modification of this Circular letter, which has been made as per Circular letter No. 76/1V -E. Admin. (A) dated September 15, 1980, is that the circular will be inapplicable to the Sessions trials that were pending on April 1, 1974, i. e., on the date on which the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force. The present sessions trial is not such one. Thus, the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge , who succeeded Sri J. B. Singh, has to proceed with trial under law, as laid down under Section 326 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and even the Sessions Judge could not recall and transfer the case to another court, when the hearing had commenced.;