ALLAHDAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This criminal revision application under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. is from the order, dated 17th June, 1986, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Naushahroferoze, whereby he has convicted the appellant Allahdad under section 459, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.

2. The only point urged in support of this revision application is that the offence was triable by the Court of Session and the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge was not a Court of Session. In support reference is made to the entry in schedule (II), which is a tabular statement of offences. According to this schedule offence under section 459 is triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the question is which is the Court of Session and for that I have to examine various provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the expression is not defined in the Code. The first provision to be noticed in section 7, which provides that each province shall consist of Sessions divisions; and every Sessions division shall, for the purposes of the Code, be a district or consist of districts. In subsection (2) of section 7, powers are given to the Provincial Government to alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts. The next provision to be considered is section 9, subsection (1) which provides that the Provincial Government shall establish a Court of Sessions for every Sessions division, and appoint a Judge of such Court. The next relevant provision is subsection (3) of section 17, which provides; that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercises jurisdiction, and he may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges. This clearly means that when an Assistant Sessions Judge exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provision of the Code he exercises jurisdiction of the Court of Session. Further, subsection (4) of section 17 provides that the Sessions Judge may also, when he himself is unavoidably absent or incapable of acting, make provision for the disposal of any urgent application by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Judge, by the District Magistrate and such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. The next provision to be noticed is section 31(3) of the Code which inter alia provides that an Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law, except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

3. Reading sections 17(3) and 17(4) and section 31(3) together all, it appears that the Court of Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, are all Courts of Session. The only limitation provided in regard to exercise of powers is when a case is tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, he cannot pass the sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

4. Reference may also be made to section 193, Code of Criminal Procedure which provide in subsection (1) that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been sent to it under section 190, subsection (3). Then subsection (2) (ibid) provides Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases only as the Provincial 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. Since in section 193(1) of the Code reference is made to section 190, subsection (3) therefore, this provision may also be considered. This subsection provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance under subsection (1) of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to Court of Session for trial. Reading all these provisions together further leaves no manner of doubt that Courts of Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge are Courts of Session. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge however, can try such cases only as the Provincial 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. In the present case the sentence awarded is within the competence of Assistant Sessions Judge. It is not the case of the Advocate for the applicant that the trial was otherwise not authorised.

5. Accordingly, I find that the trial has been held competently by a Court of Session. I, therefore, find no merits in this revision and dismiss it in limine.

6. S.A . / A‑206/ K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed in limine.