Administrative venue fixation under criminal procedure need not involve prior hearing, and jail trials remain valid if open and fair in substance.

The Supreme Court commentary explains that the High Court's power under Section 9(6) CrPC to fix the ordinary place of sitting of the Court of Session is an administrative power, so prior notice or hearing to the accused is not required when notifying the venue for pending cases. It further notes that holding trials inside jail premises does not, by itself, breach open trial or fair trial requirements under Section 327 CrPC and Articles 14 and 21, where access for the public and press remains available, defence representation is ensured, and no actual prejudice is shown. The impugned notifications and jail venue arrangement were treated as lawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could, under Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notify the place of sitting of the Court of Session for pending cases without hearing the accused; (ii) whether the special courts established inside the jail premises and the shifted venue offended the right to open and fair trial under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could, under Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notify the place of sitting of the Court of Session for pending cases without hearing the accused.

Analysis: Section 9(6) confers on the High Court the administrative power to specify the ordinary place or places where the Court of Session shall sit. That power is distinct from the second part of the provision, which permits the Sessions Court in a particular case to sit elsewhere only with the consent of the prosecution and the accused and after hearing them. The impugned notification did not transfer jurisdiction from one court to another under Section 407; it only fixed the place of sitting for a class of pending cases. The statutory scheme, therefore, did not require prior notice or hearing before the High Court exercised its administrative power.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to issue the notification under Section 9(6) without hearing the accused, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the special courts established inside the jail premises and the shifted venue offended the right to open and fair trial under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A jail is not a prohibited place for holding criminal trials. Section 327 deems a criminal court to be open to the public generally so far as it can conveniently contain them, and reasonable security restrictions do not by themselves convert an open trial into a secret one. The record showed that the press and public were permitted access, counsel represented the accused, and the proceeding was not shown to have caused real prejudice. In the exceptional facts, including serious security concerns and disruption to the administration of justice, the decision to hold the trials inside the jail was treated as a permissible regulation of venue in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The jail venue did not violate the requirements of open trial, fair trial, or equality, and the notifications were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notifications and the arrangement for holding the appellant's trials inside the jail premises were sustained as lawful, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's power under Section 9(6) to fix the ordinary place of sitting of the Court of Session is an administrative power that does not require prior hearing, and a jail trial is valid so long as it remains open to the public in substance and no actual prejudice is shown.

---