Can Sessions Court Sit Anywhere Else Than Its Court Premises To Conduct Trial? Himachal Pradesh High Court Explains

Referring to Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya stated:

“The learned Additional Sessions Judge exercises the jurisdiction vested in the Court of Session. As per sub section (6) of Section 9 quoted above, a Court of Session is authorized to hold its sittings at any place in the Sessions Division other than the place specified by the High Court by notification, in case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and the witnesses.”

The reference was made in a case where the accused was 100% disabled and could not appear before the court. The allegation was that accused was driving a vehicle under intoxication when it met an accident and the vehicle fell into a deep gorge. The other occupant of the vehicle died on the spot as a result of injuries suffered in the accident and the accused himself suffered 100% permanent disability for the whole body.

Given these circumstances, accused was not able to personally appear in the Court to face the trial. The matter was repeatedly adjourned for the want of attendance of the accused.

Therefore, facing such difficulty, the ADJ wrote a letter to the High Court requesting to grant permission to visit the place of the accused to conduct trial, otherwise to guide the further course of action to be followed by the Court below. The High Court after receiving such request, placed it on judicial side and appointed Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma as amicus curiae to assist the Court in deciding the reference.

The High Court observed that the reference has been made by the ADJ without adverting to the provisions as contained in Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads:

“The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify; 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 sittings 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.”

The Court further noted that though Section 273, Cr.P.C. provides for all evidence to be taken, in the course of the trial or other proceeding, in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, yet, such provision has been made subject to exception provided under Section 317 of the Code.

Having regard for the aforesaid statutory provisions, the Court concluded,

“Considering cumulative effect of Sections 273 and 317 of the Code, it cannot be said as an absolute rule that in no case the evidence in a trial or inquiry before criminal Court can be recorded in absence of the accused… It also cannot be ignored that the recording of evidence through video conferencing is permissible subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In appropriate cases, such mode can also be made available.”

Accordingly, the Court ordered the ADJ to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible since it is already delayed. Also, it directed the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba to provide all assistance to the ADJ for the purpose of holding of proceedings of the case through video conferencing, if required.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State of H.P. & Anr.

Case No.: Cr.MMO No. 489 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 13^th January 2023

Coram: Satyen Vaidya, J.

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 6