BERI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by 7 accused persons, who have been committed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Desuri for facing their under sec. 120 B, 307, 392, 398, 458, 324, 148 and 149 I. P. C. in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The grounds for the transfer urged before me are that it will be convenient for the defence to engage eminent lawyers from Jodhpur for defending the accused at Pali and also because the learned Munsiff-Magistrate could not commit the case directly to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sirohi, in view of the provisions of secs. 9 and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) IT will be proper to first dispose of the legal question raised before me, Mr. Bhiraraj, learned counsel for the applicants, argued that under the Criminal Procedure Code there is only one sessions court in one sessions division, who takes cognizance of sessions cases on commitment, and an Additional Sessions Judge only works as a Sessions Judge when any case is transferred to him by the Sessions Judge and the law does not permit any direct commitment to the Additional Sessions Judge. He urged, therefore, that the order of direct commitment is illegal. He relied on Hem Singh vs. The State (l); Kamleshwar Singh vs. Dharamdeo Singh (2) and In re, Pasupulati Nanjappa (3 ). The learned Deputy Government Advocate placed before me a Notification No. F. 19 (27) Jud/68/iv dated 31st May, 1968, issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and urged that in view of this general order it was competent for the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, to receive the case by direct commitment. The statutory provision, which require consideration in the light of the arguments urged by learned counsel for the applicants, is sec. 9 which reads as follows : "9. (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division, and appoint a judge of such Court. (2) 1 he State Government may, by general or special order in the Official Gazette, direct at what place or places the Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting; 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. (3) The State Government may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more such Courts. (4) A Sessions Judge of one sessions divisions may be appointed by the State Government to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in either division as the State Government may direct. (5) All Courts of Session existing when this Code comes into force shall be deemed to have been established under this Act. " It will be noticed that the State Government under sec 9 (3) has power to appoint Additional Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. There can be only one court of session for every sessions division but it may be manned by several Judges is clear from the phraseology employed in sec. 9. Sse. 193 reads as follows : "193. (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. (2) Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges shall try such cases only as the State Government by general or special order may direct them to try, or as the Sessions Judge of the division, by general or special order may make over to them for trial. " This section broadly speaking lays down that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence unless the accused has been committed by a competent Magistrate. The objects sought to be achieved by the provision is that the cases which are cognizable by the Court of Session, being offences of grave character, the person accused of such a charge should be firstly afforded an opportunity by means of a preliminary inquiry to acquaint himself with the circumstances of the offence imputed against him enabling him to make his defence, and secondly, by this process of screening the precious time of a Court of Session is not wasted in regard to cases which are not supported by adequate evidence or which can be tried and disposed of by courts of inferior jurisdiction. The word "cognizance" employed in this section or elsewhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been defined. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jamuna Singh vs. Bhadai Shah (4) have held that the expression "take cognizance of an offence" means taking notice of an offence in a judicial capacity with a view to the initiation of judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence. The question which arises for consideration before me is whether an Additional Sessions Judge, who has been appointed pursuant to the powers contained in sec. 9 (3), can take cognizance of an offence on commitment directly from the Magistrate who has held the preliminary enquiry or must it necessarily pass through Sessions Judge of the division? The intention underlying sub-sec. (2) of S 193 Cr. P. C. appears to be that the Addl. Ssssions Judges will try such cases only as the State Govt. by general or special order may direct or as the Sessions Judge of the divisions by general or special order may make over to them for trial. While sub-sec. (1) employs the language of taking "cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction" sub sec. ( 2) employs the language"shall try such cases". In my opinion when notice of an offence is taken in a judicial capacity with a view to initiate judicial proceedings it is included in the expression "shall try such cases". The sources through which the cases will reach the Additional Sessions Judge, contemplated by sub sec. (2) are two in number - (a) by the orders of the State Government and (b) as the Sessions Judge of the division may make over to the Additional Sessions Judge. This can be done either by a general or a special order. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is that it may be pursuant to a general or special order but it is only the Session Judge who can take cognizance of the case and then he is to make over such a case to an Additional Sessions Judge. If this interpretation was accepted some of the words of sub sec. (2) of sec. 193 practically redundant. The language of sub-sec. (2) is not that the Sessions Judge of a division will only make over to Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges those cases which he or the State Government by general order decide for being tried by him The language employed envisages a general or a special order made by the State Government conferring powers on an Additional Sessions Judge for trying such cases as he may be directed by the State Government. Let me now examine the cases cited by the learned counsel in support of his construction. In the Rajasthan case (l) six persons including 3 petitioners were challaned by the police in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, under sec. 395 I. P. C. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional First Class Magistrate, Jodhpur After making an inquiry he committed three of them to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for standing their trial under secs. 395 and 397 I. P. C. and the three petitioners were discharged by him. After commitment the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge on 8th January, 1955 An application was presented on 15-1-1955 by the Public Prosecutor to the Additional Sessions Judge under secs. 436 and 437 Cr. P. C. and it was urged that the three petitioners were wrongly discharged by the committing court. The petitioners raised on objection that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application unless it was first filed before the Sessions Judge and then transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The argument was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it was held by virtue of sec. 432-A Cr. P. C. that he could hear the application. The High Court inter alia observed - "it may be pointed out there that sec. 193 (2) allows the Additional Sessions Judges to try such cases only as the State Government may be general or special order direct them to try or as the Sessions Judge of a division may by general or special order make over to them for trial. This is with regard to original Sessions cases. Then sec. 409 2) of the Cr. P. C. provides that an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge shall hear only such appeals as the States Govt may, by general or special order, direct or as the Sessions Judge of the division may make over to him, Thus, in the matter of appeals also, the Additional Sessions Judge is to hear only such appeals as may be made over to him by the Sessions Judge or as the State Government may direct by general or special order. Section 438 Criminal P. C. is included in Chapter XXXII which deals with Reference and Revision. Sub-section (2) is meant to provide corresponding powers to Additional Sessions Judges in matters of reference and revision, but again, that power is to be exercised only when a case is transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge by or under any general or special order of the Sessions Judge. Thus, the entire scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is that an Additional Sessions Judge is to try only those original cases, appeals, reference and revisions which respectively come to him under secs. 193, 409 and 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, the revision application was not transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, he could not exercise his powers under Chapter XXXII" In the Full Bench case of the Patna High Court (2) it was held that the words "court of Session" occurring in sec. 408 refer only to the Court of Sessions presided over by the Sessions Judge, and an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge, as a judge of the Court of Session has no powers to receive and admit appeals filed in the Court of Session. In the Andhra Pradesh's Fall Bench case (3) it was held that an Additional Sessions Judge has no power under the Code by virtue of his office, to receive appeals and admit them. G. O. Ms. No. 934 gave only a direction that an Additional Sessions Judge shall hear appeals of persons convicted by second or third class Magistrate. It did not expressly confer on an Additional Sessions Judge a power to receive such appeals if presented to him and to admit and take them on file. It was held that it cannot be said that the direction to hear contained in the G. O. implied or included a power to receive, admit and take on file. Consequently it was held that the Additional Sessions Judge had no power to hear and dispose of appeal which had been directly filed before him by the appellant against his conviction. J In none of three cases there was any Government Order of the nature and amplitude as is before me. The Andhara Pradesh case (3) is distinguishable because the notification did not authorise direct reception of appeals. The Rajas than ease (1) had no order conferring powers by general or special order issued by the State Government under sec. 193 (2) to consider. Likewise there was no order in the Full Bench Patna case (2) under sec. 193 (2 ). The Government Order reads : - "government OF RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT" NOTIFICATION. No. F. 19[27] Jud/68/iv. Dated the 31st May, 1968 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 [central Act V of 1898], the State Government hereby directs that with effect from the 15th June, 1968, the Additional Sessions Judges mentioned in column 2 of the Table given below shall try all cases triable by a Court of Session arising within the local limits of their jurisdiction as mentioned in column 3 of the said Table, and in all such cases the accused shall be committed to their courts directly - S. No Additional Sessions Judge. Local limits of jurisdiction. 1 2 3 10Additional Sessions Judge Sirohi Sirohi District & Bali Sub-Division of Pali District. . . . . . . By Order of the Governor, Sd/- Anop Singh Secretary to Government" The expression used in this notification is 'in all such cases the accused shall be committed their courts directly. " The simple, important, question is whether such an order could be made. In my opinion the answer must be in the affirmative. I have already held that the words "shall take cognizance" and "shall try" connote the same meaning so far as the provisions of sec. 193 are concerned. Further it will be meaningless ritual if the State Government authorised the Sessions Judge of Pali to transfer cases relating to the Sirohi District and Bali Sub-Division of Pali District to be made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. I am in respect-full agreement with the observations contained in Kamleshwar Singh's case (2) that where alternative constructions are open the Court will adopt that construction by which the intention of the legislature will be better effectuated or it will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to regulate and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system I might add that principal purpose of procedural laws is to facilitate the attainment of justice without delay and consistent with principles of natural justice. J. G. Sutherland in "statutes and Statutory Construction" sec. 680 (2) has observed as follows : - "legislation designating the method of enforcing and establishing substantive rights, as a general rule, is enacted not for an end in itself, but to provide a better way of accomplishing an end. cf. Duggan vs. Ogden, 278 Mass. 432]. Statutes on procedure, then, have as their obvious purpose the providing of expeditious means whereby the plaintiff holding a cause of action may enforce his right, and the facilities whereby the defendant may interpose the defenses. Therefore, the judiciary has generally been very generous in the treatment of statutes relating to procedure. (Coblentz vs. Sparks, 35 F Supp. 605)". The interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant would merely delay the proceedings and thereby the dispensation of justice The legislature in my opinion clearly intended that the Additional Sessions Judges will try all those cases which the State Government may by general or special order direct them to do. The notification aforesaid is clearly intra vires and confers powers on the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, to receive by commitment cases for trial from the District of Sirohi and Sub-Division of Bali. The first argument of the learned counsel fur the applicant, therefore, fails. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it will be convenient for the Advocate engaged by the defence and the applicant himself if the case is transferred to pali. I am not prepared to accept that competent legal assistance is not available to the applicant at Sirohi. The trial of a case cannot possibly be permitted to be regulated by the choice of the Advocate by the defence and his consequent convenience. So far as the convenience of the witness are concerned it has been contested by the learned Deputy Government Advocate He urged that it will not be inconvenient for the witnesses to come to Sirohi. I am not, therefore, persuaded by the ground of convenience to transfer this case. The result is that this application for transfer fails and is dismissed. ;