Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the establishment and composition of Courts of Session.
Establishment of Courts of Session
- Sub-section (1) of Section 9 requires the State Government to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. A sessions division is a territorial division of a State for the purposes of criminal administration.
- Sub-section (2) of Section 9 deems the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the city of Ahmedabad to be sessions divisions.
Composition of Courts of Session
- Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. The Sessions Judge is a judicial officer who has the power to try and convict persons accused of serious offenses, such as murder, rape, and armed robbery.
- Sub-section (3) of Section 9 empowers the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges have the same powers as Sessions Judges, but they are subordinate to Sessions Judges.
- Sub-section (4) of Section 9 empowers the High Court to appoint the Sessions Judge of one sessions division to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division. In such a case, the Sessions Judge may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct.
Jurisdiction of Courts of Session
Courts of Session have original jurisdiction to try the following types of offenses:
- All offenses punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
- All offenses punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.
- All offenses which the State Government may, by notification, declare to be triable by a Court of Session.
Significance of Section 9
Section 9 of the CrPC is significant because it establishes the Court of Session as the principal court of original jurisdiction for serious offenses. The Court of Session plays a vital role in the criminal justice system by ensuring that persons accused of serious offenses are brought to justice in a fair and impartial manner.
Notes for Judicial Exam
- The following are some important points to note for the judicial exam:
- The Court of Session is the principal court of original jurisdiction for serious offenses.
- The State Government is responsible for establishing Courts of Session.
- The High Court is responsible for appointing Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges, and Assistant Sessions Judges.
- The Sessions Judge is the presiding officer of a Court of Session.
Following are some detailed case laws on section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the establishment and composition of Courts of Session:
Case 1: State of West Bengal v. Anukul Chandra Pramanik (1993) 2 SCC 403
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has the power to transfer a case from one Court of Session to another Court of Session in the same State. The Court held that this power is inherent in the High Court’s power to supervise and control the subordinate courts.
The Court observed that the power to transfer cases should be exercised sparingly and only for good reasons. Some of the factors that the High Court may consider when transferring a case include:
- The convenience of the parties and witnesses
- The likelihood of a fair and impartial trial
- The security of the accused
- The public interest
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Laxmanbhai Patel (2002) 2 SCC 342
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Session has the power to authorize the police to arrest a person without a warrant for an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court held that this power is derived from section 9(3) of the CrPC, which empowers the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. The Court also held that the power to authorize arrest without warrant must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if not arrested immediately.
Case 3: State of Gujarat v. Chandrakant Ramchandra Bhatt (2012) 11 SCC 665
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Session has the discretion to grant or refuse bail to a person accused of a serious offense more strictly than a magistrate’s court. The Court held that this is because the Court of Session is a court of higher jurisdiction and has the power to impose more severe punishments.
The Court observed that the Court of Session should consider the following factors when granting or refusing bail to a person accused of a serious offense:
- The nature and gravity of the offense
- The likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence
- The likelihood of the accused committing other offenses while on bail
- The impact of the offense on the victim and society
The Court also held that the Court of Session should give due weight to the accused’s right to liberty and should not deny bail unless there are strong grounds for doing so.
These are just a few examples of case laws on section 9 of the CrPC. There are many other case laws that deal with various aspects of the establishment, composition, and jurisdiction of Courts of Session. It is important for lawyers and judges to be familiar with these case laws so that they can apply them correctly in their cases.