- (1.) Invoking this court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petition is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Calcutta, for a direction in exercise of power under sub-clause (6) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for holding court in connection with Sessions Case No. 1 of 1997 (Sessions Trial, No.1 of June 1997) pending before Sri A.K. Bisi, learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, at Central Armoury of the West Bengal Police (Barrackpore) and at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai, for the limited purpose of identification of arms, ammunition and other explosives which are kept in the armoury and the aircraft which is kept at the international airport at Mumbai. Before the learned single Judge, however, the petition was not pressed for the holding of the court/trial at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai. It was urged, however, in respect of holding of trial for identification at the Central Armoury that huge number of arms and ammunition as also explosives were seized in the course of investigation of the case and those have been shown as relied upon articles in the charge-sheet. It is urged since identification trial is necessary and due to security hazards and other potential risks and danger in carrying the arms and explosives, some of which were still alive, from Barrackpore Central Armoury to the precincts of the court, direction be issued for the trial for identification under Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at Central Armoury, Barrackpore. The prayer to the above effect was made before the trial court soon after the evidence of the first witness of the prosecution was recorded in part on 11.3.98--The trial court held that unless a special direction was received from the High Court for holding court at Barrackpore, and also at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai, as the case may be, for the purpose of taking evidence of the concerned witnesses in the matter of identification of seized arms and ammunition and explosives and the aircraft, the court, was not in a position to shift the venue at Barrackpore and Sahara International Airport for the purpose as stated leaving aside other pending civil and criminal cases of the court.
(2.) Learned single Judge has recorded as follows :- "A simple question thus arises how to resolve the above impasse in course of the trial-in-question. The appropriate section as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was, obviously, clause (6) of section 9 which clearly speaks that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may by notification specify. It would be further relevant to point out that in normal course, a Sessions Judge appointed in one Sessions Divisions sits for the hearing of the cases only within the Sessions division where he has been appointed as such. The law, however, does permit as contained in clause (4) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Sessions Judge of one Session division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division."
(3.) Learned single Judge has referred to certain relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 SCC(Cri) 711 which reads as follows :- "The High Court can fix a place other than the court where the sittings are ordinarily held if the High Court so notifies for the ends of justice. However, the use of the word 'ordinarily' by itself signifies that the High Court in exercise of its power under section 9(6) may order the holding of court in a place other than the court where sittings are ordinarily held if the High Court thinks it expedient to do so and for other valid reasons such as security of the accused as well as of the witnesses and also of the court. The order of the High Court notifying the trial of a particular case in a place other than the Court is not a judicial order but an administrative order." ** ** ** ** ** ** "It is unnecessary to hear the accused or anybody else before exercising the power under Section 9(6). Such a hearing, however, is required to be given by the court of Session if it wants to change the normal place of sitting, in any particular case, for the general convenience of parties and witnesses.";