Orders Passed Under S.194 CrPC Purely Administrative, Cannot Be Questioned Unless Apparently Illegal: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind. Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court...
The Madras High Court recently observed that the orders passed under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are purely administrative in nature and cannot be challenged unless they are apparently illegal and passed without any application of mind.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench dismissed a plea preferred by an accused seeking for transfer of his trial from one court to another, upon court pointing out that the impugned order was one passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business and there was no reason to interfere with the same.
“It is very unfortunate to note that the petitioner wants a judge of his own choice, not only that, orders in his favour at all events, at all the occasions. As noted above, the order passed under section 194 Cr.P.C by the Principal Sessions Judge is purely an administrative in nature. As mentioned above, it is nothing, but distribution business among the Additional District Judges. The administrative order cannot be questioned, unless it is apparently illegal. On that account, this petition is not maintainable,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a plea by one M Palani who was accused in a case pending trial on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 109, 302, 307, 506(2), 120B, 149 and 114 of the IPC.
Claiming that his interest would be affected if the trial is conducted before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani filed a petition under S. 408 CrPC, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge seeking to transfer the trial to some other court.
Following the Special Public Prosecutor's intervention in the aforesaid plea, he approached the High Court claiming the same relief.
Observing that the accused cannot be a judge in his own case, the court remarked that just because some adverse orders had been passed against the accused during trial, it could not be presumed or assumed that the judge was prejudiced.
It further noted that the matter had to be dealt with by the Principal Sessions Judge and any orders made by the High Court in this regard would be inappropriate.
“It is for the Principal Sessions Judge to take the decision in the above said issue. Any observation if made by this court in respect of the proceedings in SC No.528 of 2021, may not be appropriate. It may cause prejudice not only to the prosecution, but also to the accused and may create some unnecessary problem. So I am avoiding making any observation in the above said issue,” the court said.
The court also noted that the plea was filed without any basic grounds and Palani could not take the courts for granted for satisfying his personal requirements.
In the course of the hearing, the court was also informed that a similar complaint was filed by another accused which was dismissed by the High Court. The court noted that the accused were attempting a delaying tactic and allowing the same would amount to clear abuse of process of court. Thus, it dismissed the plea.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Anand
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.R.Karunanidhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others
Case No: Crl.OP (MD) No.19181 of 2023