Criminal Appeal No 823 Of 1981 Etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 2771981 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl
ANO 215 of 1981
M Veerappa for the Appellant
MB Lal Amicus Curiae KR Nagaraja for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
These appeals have been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka setting aside conviction of the respondents and remanding the cases before the Sessions Court for retrial
The respondents were committed for trial to the Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area Bangalore City in number of Ses sions cases including Sessions Case No 35 of 1980 in re spect of an offence under Sec 302 for which after trial the respondent Kuppuswamy was sentenced to death and also for offence under Sec
332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year
Against the conviction and sentences appeal were preferred before Hon ble the High Court
Kuppuswamy s matter also came before the High Court apart from his appeal also by reference
The facts which gave rise to these appeals were that about 2 AM on 9th April 1980 it was alleged that Kuppuswa my the present respondent stabbed Narayanaswamy who expired at 11 PM and also Ramu who expired at 805 PM and Sunil Kumar Sub Inspector of Police who expired at 230 AM on the next day
Sunil Kumar and his police party happened to go there in a van on hearing galata in the railway platform of the Cantonment railway station Bangalore and when Sunil Kumar caught hold of the wrist of the accused respondent
298 he somehow managed to slip out and stabbed him
PW 1 Ulaga nathan who was the Senior Trains Clerk went and lodged the First Information Report exhibit
Investigation was taken up and after investigation chargesheet was filed
It is not necessary for us to go into these question as question involved in these appeals is merely a technical question pertaining to procedure and does not pertain to the merits of the matter
The accused persons were committed to the Sessions Court Metropolitan Area Bangalore City and it appears that the Principal Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area made over the Sessions case in exercise of his powers under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to II Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area Bangalore City who framed charges on 21880 and recorded to plea of the accused persons
On 17th November 1980 City Civil Courts Act came into force
Monthly statements of cases wherein the accused persons were in custody were prepared and it appears that these statements also reached the High Court and have been made use of by the learned Judges in disposing of these appeals
It has been observed by the learned High Court that in the monthly statement of October 1980 Sessions Case No 35 of 1980 with which we are concerned is shown having been pending on the board of II Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area Bangalore City and was posted for evi dence
It is further observed by the learned Judges of the High Court that the statement of November 1980 which was prepared after the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act was brought into force and powers of Sessions were conferred on all the City Civil Judges under Sec
93 Cr
PC by the High Court this case has been shown as pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area Bangalore City
The High Court has also referred to a Notification issued on 30th January 1981 by the Registrar of Bangalore City Civil Courts saying that Sessions cases and other matters pending before the II III and VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges are to be tried by them and on 12th Jan 1981 the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore City recorded the evidence in the case
It is also observed by the High Court in its judgment that the Office informed the learned Judges that there was no order of transfer under Sec
407 Cr
PC transferring this case viz Sessions Case No 35 of 1980 from the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge to the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
299 Under Sec
194 Cr
PC the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Metropolitan Area Bangalore has the power to make over a Sessions case for trial and disposal in accordance with law
The High Court it appears has pro ceeded on the basis that as the plea was recorded when the case was pending before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge the Sessions Judge could not transfer the case to the board of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge under the provisions contained in Sec
409 clause 2
The High Court also proceeded on the assumption that there is no order of the Sessions Judge presiding over the Princi pal City Civil Court for allotment of this case to the Court of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
The learned High Court also came to the conclusion that provisions contained in Sec
465 also will not remedy the defect
Consequently the High Court allowed the appeals quashed the convictions and directed remand for retrial of the cases
What appears from the judgment of the High Court is that after commitment this case ie Sessions Case No 35 of 1980 was shown in the list of October 1980 as pending in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge as it was made over to that Court in exercise of powers conferred under Sec 194 by the Principal Sessions Judge and this also was inferred by the High Court from the fact that the II Additional Sessions Judge framed charges on 21880 in this case and recorded the plea of the accused on the same day
After the coming into force of the City Civil Courts Act in November 1980 in the list this case was shown to be pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and what further has been observed by the High Court is that on 12th January 1981 the evidence in the case com menced on the board of III Additional City Civil and Ses sions Judge
It appears that the learned Judges of the High Court looked into the Notification issued by the Registrar of the City Civil Court and also the list of pending cases pertaining to accused in custody which probably was sent to the High Court every month and also made enquiries from the Office of the High Court as to whether any sessions trial was transferred by orders of the High Court under Sec
407 but it appears that the learned Judges did not direct to get the orders passed by the Principal Sessions Judge of the Sessions Division under Sec
194 Cr
As the Principal Sessions Judge of the Division under Sec
194 had power to allot any Sessions case to any one of the Additional Ses sions Judges of the Division
At the same time such orders under Sec 194 could be passed by the Principal Sessions Judge either for individual cases or by general orders allotting particular 300 areas to particular Additional Judge of the Division
In fact Sec
194 contemplates that all the Sessions Judges Principal and Additionals who are the Sessions Judges in the Division have been notified as Sessions Judges in the Division and therefore each one of them has jurisdiction to try the case arising out of an incident in that Division
What has been observed by the learned Judges of the High Court that this case from IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge went to the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for which they could not find any order of transfer passed under Sec
407 by the High Court but it appears that if enquiries were made it might have been discovered that the case might have been transferred in exercise of powers under Sec 194 by the Principal Sessions Judge
The usual practice in big places Sessions Divisions where a number of cases are committed and there are number of courts exercising the same jurisdiction in respect of the whole Division distribution memos are prepared by the Principal Sessions Judge so that cases are so distributed to all the Additional Judges so that they are disposed of expeditiously
It appears that this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the High Court even by the counsel appearing for the State
It is not disputed that the Metropolitan Area Bangalore City has a Sessions Division and is presided over by a Principal Sessions Judge and has a number of Additional Sessions Judges
It is also not disputed that all the Ses sions Judges sitting in this Division are notified as Ses sions Judges for the Division and therefore it is also not disputed that all of them have jurisdiction to try a case arising out of the Sessions Division
Even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any lack of inherent juris diction
What has weighed with the High Court is that as the charge was framed by the II Additional Sessions Judge the case could not be transferred to the board of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge without an order of transfer by the High Court as it was observed that under Sec 194 the case could not be withdrawn by the Principal Sessions Judge after commencement of the trial and this was inferred from the provisions contained in Sec
409 clause reads as under Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges to try cases made over to them An Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the Division may by general or special order make over to 301 him for trial or as the High Court may by special order direct him to try
 Sec 194 authorises an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge to try a Sessions case arising in the Sessions Division when such a case is allotted to him either by a special or general order or a case which has been allotted to him by the High Court
Apparently therefore the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge who tried the case tried it as it must have been allotted to him
It is not disputed that it must have been allotted to him as the distribution orders have not been sent for by the High Court nor have been produced nor it is disputed but what is observed by the High Court is that as the charge was framed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge it could not have been withdrawn under Sec 409 clause 2 and allotted to any other Additional Sessions Judge Section 409 reads Withdrawal of cases and appeal by Sessions Judge 1 A Sessions Judge may withdraw any case or appeal from or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him
2 At any time before the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge a Ses sions Judge may recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Additional Sessions Judge
3 Where a Sessions Judge withdraws or re calls a case or appeal under sub section 1 or sub section 2 he may either try the case in his own Court or hear the appeal himself or make it over in accordance with the provi sions of this Code to another Court for trial or hearing as the case may be Clause 2 talks of before the trial of the case  commenced
 In fact the scheme of Sec 409 indicates that the Sessions Judge had powers to withdraw any case and to allot to any one of the Additional Sessions Judges
In a Sessions trial recording of plea whether will amount to commencement of the trial or not has not been discussed by the High 302 Court and it is not necessary for us also to go into this question
So far as the trial of the case is concerned it is not found by the High Court that the Sessions Judge who tried the case had no jurisdiction
On the contrary it is not disputed before us that he had the jurisdiction to try the case arising out of the Sessions Division the only objection which has prevailed with the High Court is that as charge was framed and plea was recorded by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge it could not have been with drawn by the Principal Sessions Judge and made over to III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
It is not disputed that it was withdrawn and made over
In this view of the matter therefore the provisions contained it Sec
465 are of some importance
The High Court however observed that provisions of Sec
465 Cr
PC can not be made use of to regularise this trial
No reasons have been stated for this conclusion
465 Cr
PC reads as under Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error omission or irregularity 1 Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained no finding sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal confirmation or revision on account of any error omission or irregularity in the complaint summons warrant proclamation order judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other pro ceedings under this Code or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecu tion unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby
2 In determining whether any error omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings
 It is provided that a finding or sentence passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction could not be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity if no projudice is caused to the accused
It is not disputed that this question was neither raised by the accused at the trial nor any prejudice was pleaded either at the trial or at the appellate stage and 303 therefore in absence of any prejudice such a technical objection will not affect the order or sentence passed by competent court
Apart from Sec
provides for remedy in cases of trial in wrong places
462 reads as under Proceedings in wrong place No finding sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed took place in a wrong sessions divi sion district sub division or other local are unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice
 This provision even saves a decision if the trial has taken place in a wrong Session Division or Sub Division or a district or other local area and such an error could only be of some consequence if it results in failure of justice otherwise no finding or sentence could be set aside only on the basis of such an error
It is therefore clear that even if the trial before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge would have been in a Division other than the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for which III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is also notified to be a Sessions Judge still the trial could not have been quashed in view of Sec 462
This goes a long way to show that even if a trial takes place in a wrong place where the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case still unless failure of justice is pleaded and proved the trial can not be quashed
In this view of the matter therefore reading Sec
462 alongwith Sec
465 clearly goes to show that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction merely either on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground of any irregularity of procedure an order or sentence awarded by a competent court could not be set aside unless a prejudice is pleaded and proved which will mean failure of justice
But in absence of such a plea merely on such technical ground the order or sentence passed by a competent court could not be quashed
It is not disputed that the plea of prejudice or failure of justice is neither pleaded nor proved
Not only that even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any possi bility of prejudice or failure of justice
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also did not suggest
any possibility of projudice or failure of justice
Under these 304 circumstances therefore the view taken by the High Court does not appear to be correct in view of the language of Sec
462 read with Sec 465
The judgment of the High Court is therefore set aside
The direction of remand made by the High Court is also quashed
It is unfortunate that these matters pertaining to incidents of 1980 should not have been disposed of till today and that the matter should have remained pending on such technical grounds for all these years
We therefore direct that the appeals be remitted back to the High Court so that they are heard and disposed of on merits as expeditiously as possible
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The case of the respondent accused was committed to the Sessions Court Metropolitan Area Bangalore City and made over under section 194 Cr
PC by the Principle Sessions Judge for trial to the II Additional Sessions Judge who framed charges on August 21 1980 and recorded the plea of the accused persons
In the monthly statement of October 1980 the case was shown pending on the board of II Additional Sessions Judge and listed for evidence
On November 17 1980 the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act came into force and powers of Sessions were conferred on all the City Civil Judges under s93 Cr
In the monthly statement prepared thereafter for November 1980 the case was shown pending before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
However the evidence in the case was recorded and the respondent accused convicted under s302 and 332 IPC by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
In appeal and reference the High Court looked into the monthly statements of pending cases and observing that there was no order under s407 Cr
PC transferring the case from the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge to the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge that as the charge was framed and plea recorded when the case was pending before the II additional Sessions Judge the case could not be withdrawn by the Principle Sessions Judge under s4092 after the commencement of the trial and allotted to any other Additional Sesssion Judge that there was no order of the Principal Session Judge under section 194 transferring the case to the board of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and that the defect could not be remedied under s465 CrPC quashed the conviction and directed remand for retrial
The State came in appeal to this Court
Allowing the appeal the Court 296 HELD 11 The view taken by the High Court was contrary to the language of ss462 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The judgment of the High Court could not there fore be sustained
304A 12 Reading section 462 alongwith s465 goes to show that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction merely either on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground of any irregularity of procedure an order of sentence award ed by a competent court could not be set aside unless preju dice is pleaded and proved which will mean failure of justice
303F G In the instant case it is not found by the High Court that the Sessions Judge who tried the case arising out of the Sessions Division had no jurisdiction
The Metropolitan Area Bangalore City has a Sessions Division and is presided over by a Principal Sessions Judge and has a number of Additional Sessions Judges
All the Sessions Judges sitting in this Division are notified as Sessions Judges for the Division and therefore all of them have jurisdiction to try a case arising out of the Sessions Division
the plea of prejudice of failure of justice is neither pleaded nor proved
Not only that even the judgment of the High Court does not indicate any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice
There was no suggestion either of any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice
The order passed by the 1II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge could not therefore be quashed
302A C 2
Section 462 Cr
PC even saves a decision if the trial has taken place in a wrong Sessions Division or Sub Division or a district or other local area where the court has no territorial jurisdiction and such an error could only be of some consequence if it results in failure of justice otherwise no finding or sentence could be set aside only on the basis of such an error
Therefore even if the trial before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge would have taken place in a Division other than the Bangalore Metropolitan Area for which III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is also notified to be a Sessions Judge still the trial could not have been quashed in view of s462
303C E 31 The scheme of s409 indicates that the Sessions Judge had powers to withdraw any case and to allot it to any one of the Additional Sessions Judges
The Principal Ses sions Judge of the Division under section 194 had power to allot any Sessions case to any one of the Additional Sessions Judges of the Division
He could pass such orders either for individual cases or allot particular areas to particular Additional Judge of the Division
299H 300A 297 32 The III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge who tried the instant case apparently tried it as it must have been allotted to him
The Case must have been allotted to him as the distribution orders have not been sent for by the High Court nor have they been produced
If enquiries were made it might have been discovered that the case had been transferred in exercise of the powers under section 194 by the Principal Sessions Judge
300B C