Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 deals with the subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges.
Subsection (1) of Section 10 provides that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction. This means that the Assistant Sessions Judges are bound to follow the directions of the Sessions Judge and their decisions can be reviewed and overturned by the Sessions Judge.
Subsection (2) of Section 10 empowers the Sessions Judge to make rules, consistent with the CrPC, as to the distribution of business among the Assistant Sessions Judges. This means that the Sessions Judge can decide which types of cases will be heard by the Assistant Sessions Judges and which types of cases will be heard by the Sessions Judge himself/herself.
Subsection (3) of Section 10 empowers the Sessions Judge to make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his/her absence or inability to act, by an Additional Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. This means that if the Sessions Judge is absent or unable to act, the Additional Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate can hear urgent applications.
Significance of Section 10 : Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges.
Section 10 of the CrPC is significant because it ensures that there is a clear hierarchy within the Court of Session and that the Assistant Sessions Judges are accountable to the Sessions Judge. This helps to maintain consistency in the application of the law and to ensure that all cases are heard fairly and impartially.
Notes for Judicial Exam : Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges.
- The following are some important points to note for the judicial exam:
- Assistant Sessions Judges are subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction.
- The Sessions Judge has the power to distribute business among the Assistant Sessions Judges.
- The Sessions Judge can make provision for the disposal of urgent applications in the event of his/her absence or inability to act by an Additional Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Following is a case law on section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges:
T.V. Sarma v. A. Nagakoteshwarrao 1977 Cr. LJ 19
In this case, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge is the only person who can authorize an application for bail to be heard by an Assistant Sessions Judge. The Court held that this is because section 10 of the CrPC makes it clear that Assistant Sessions Judges are subordinate to the Sessions Judge and that they can only exercise jurisdiction in the cases that are assigned to them by the Sessions Judge.
The Court observed that the Sessions Judge is a court of higher jurisdiction and has the power to impose more severe punishments than an Assistant Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is important that the Sessions Judge has control over the cases that are heard by Assistant Sessions Judges.
The Court also held that the Sessions Judge should not arbitrarily refuse to authorize an application for bail to be heard by an Assistant Sessions Judge. However, the Sessions Judge is entitled to refuse to authorize such an application if there are good reasons for doing so, such as if the Sessions Judge believes that the Assistant Sessions Judge is not qualified to hear the case or that the case is too complex for the Assistant Sessions Judge to handle.
This case law is important because it clarifies the relationship between Assistant Sessions Judges and Sessions Judges and the role of the Sessions Judge in authorizing bail applications to be heard by Assistant Sessions Judges.