Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges to try cases made over tothem

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court

   Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2013 Binding Precedent (Supreme Court - Division Bench Decision) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When offences are committed in one series of acts forming the same criminal transaction, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has the express authority under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as Sections 420 and 120-B) against an accused, notwithstanding that the same offences would ordinarily be triable by a Magistrate, provided that co-accused in the same transaction are charged with offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits such consolidated trial of co-accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction, and the splitting of such trials would be incongruous and impractical. The High Court's Administrative Order and the State's Notification appointing a Special Judge for the 2G Spectrum cases were constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Articles 233-234 and Section 194 of the CrPC respectively, and cannot be collaterally assailed as they were premised on the Supreme Court's valid directions under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.

   On this section: Empowers High Court to direct by special or general order that Sessions Judge or Additional/Assistant Sessions Judge try certain cases. Used as basis for Delhi High Court's Administrative Order appointing Special Judge for 2G cases.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court

   Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2013 Binding (Supreme Court Division Bench) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where co-accused in the same criminal transaction are charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has valid jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act read with Section 220 and Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take cognizance of and try all accused jointly, including those charged solely with IPC offences. The Administrative Order of the High Court nominating a Special Judge and the Government Notification appointing such Special Judge are constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Article 233 of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The establishment of a Special Court to exclusively try cases arising from the same FIR and the same criminal transaction does not violate the Criminal Procedure Code or deprive the accused of valuable legal rights.

   On this section: Empowers the High Court to direct an Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge to try certain cases. Court cited this as basis for Delhi High Court's authority to nominate an officer as Special Judge.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Vikash Saraf vs Registrar General Delhi H. Ct.

   Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2013 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable Reported in (2013) - Citation details not explicitly provided in judgment text. The order is dated 2013-07-01 and involv

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When co-accused are charged in the same transaction with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of that Act has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) to try other co-accused charged only with Indian Penal Code offences (Sections 120-B and 420 IPC) relating to the same transaction. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits consolidated trial of multiple accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction. An Administrative Order passed by the High Court and a Notification issued by the State Government appointing a Special Judge to try all cases arising from the 2G Spectrum scam, including IPC offences, is constitutionally and legally valid as it falls within the statutory framework of the PC Act and Criminal Procedure Code and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution merely by affecting appeal rights when there is no threat to fair trial. Supreme Court orders directing establishment of a Special Court passed under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be indirectly assailed through collateral challenges to the Special Court's jurisdiction.

   On this section: Empowers High Court by special or general order to direct Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge to try certain cases. Applied to validate Administrative Order passed by Delhi High Court nominating Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.