TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/79. It appears that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court was transferred to the Court of City and Sessions Judge Bangalore and the High Court therefore by an order dated 30th December 1980 made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 407 of the CrPC withdrew Sessions Case No. 15/79 from the Sessions Judge, Bangalore and transferred it to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore City for disposal in accordance with law. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge registered the case as Sessions Case No. 17/81 and by an Order dated 30th January 1981, purporting to be in exercise of the power vested under Section 409(1) of the CrPC transferred the case to the VIth Additional City Civil and Sessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. We may proceed on the basis that the VIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge could try only such Sessions Cases as were made over to him by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though we are not at all sure that, even if the VIth Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge tried a Sessions Case which was not formally made over to him, the trial would be invalid, because in any event the VIth Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge would have inherent jurisdiction to try the Sessions Case. We need not however, go into that question because we find that there was an order made by the Principal City Civil Sessions Judge on 30th January 1981 making over S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional City-Civil Sessions Judge and he had jurisdiction to try that Sessions Case. The Judgment of the High Court setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondent on the ground that the VIth Additional City Civil Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to try Sessions Case No. 17/79, must consequently be held to be erroneous. 5. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the High Court and direct that the appeal preferred by the respondent shall be heard by the High Court on merits and it shall be disposed of in accordance with law. 6. Since the respondent had addressed a communication to this court requesting that a lawyer may be appointed to represent him in the appeal before us, we reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
