ALOK K.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.K. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, Sri Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, Senior Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh, the learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the material available before this Court.
(2.) BY means of this petition two prayers have been made. The first prayer is for quashing of the order, dated 11-06-2009, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow transferring the trial of the petitioner from the Court premises to the jail premises and the second prayer is for according mandamus commanding the op­posite parties to make available all the re­quired treatment to the petitioner, so that, he may perform routine activities while in custody and if needed the petitioner be admitted in hospital. The impugned order, dated 11.6.2009 is as under: "I have perused the letter, dated 06-06-2009 and considered the circum­stances of the case. Considering the position of the accused it will be expedient and proper to try his case in the Court constituted in jail premises. Let the cases mentioned in the letter be transferred to the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lucknow for trial of the cases inside the jail premises along with other cases." Session Judge, Lucknow. 11-06-2009 There is no quarrel on the point that the Court of Session is ordinarily re­quired to hold its siting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notifica­tion, specify, as envisaged in section 9 (6) of the Cr.P.C. But if in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the par­ties and witnesses to hold its sitting at any other place in the sessions division it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein, as has been further provided in the aforesaid provision. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it comes out that consent of the prosecution and the accused is a condition precedent for passing such order under the aforesaid provision. Concededly, no such consent was obtained in this case. The ob­taining consent of the parties can be waived only when it appears expedient to do so, considering the internal security or public order as envisaged in U.P. Amend­ment of section 9 (6) Cr.P.C. The relevant provisions are as under: "Provided that the Court of Session may hold, or the High Court may direct the Court of Session to hold, its sitting in any particular case at any place in the sessions division, where it appears expedient to do so for considerations of internal secu­rity or public order and in such cases the consent of the prosecution and accused shall not be necessary."
(3.) BUT in the impugned order the learned Session Judge did not mention anything about either internal security or public order.;