Venue designation for Sessions and Magistrate trials in district jail premises upheld, appeal dismissed and administrative arrangement sustained.

Challenge to notifications relocating sessions and magistrate trials to premises of the district jail raised issues on the legality of administrative exercise of venue designation and constitution of special courts for expeditious trial. The court examined the administrative power to designate the place of sitting of courts and to constitute an Additional District and Sessions Judge and a Judicial Magistrate First Class within jail premises for trials pending against the accused. The court found no merit in the challenge to those notifications and dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notifications and the administrative arrangement to ensure expeditious trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Courts notification under Section 9(6) CrPC designating Siwan Jail as a place of sitting for trial (and consequent State notifications establishing special courts in the jail under Section 11 CrPC) is legally valid; (ii) Whether the High Court was required to afford the accused a hearing (audi alteram partem) before issuing the notification under Section 9(6) CrPC; (iii) Whether holding the trials inside the jail violated the accuseds right to an open/public trial under Section 327 CrPC and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Validity of notifications under Section 9(6) CrPC and Section 11 CrPC establishing/authorising trials in Siwan Jail.

Analysis: The notifications were issued after consideration of communications from police, district administration and the State, and by the High Court through its Standing Committee under the administrative power in the first part of Section 9(6). Section 11 expressly empowers the State, after consultation with the High Court, to establish Judicial Magistrate courts. The State notifications of 7.6.2006 implemented the High Court decision and made the jail premises available; any erroneous reference to other enactments does not vitiate the substance when the action is traceable to competent statutory power. Pre-publication delay in Gazetting was raised late and involves mixed fact and law; the High Court had taken steps to publish and no demonstrable prejudice from any delay was shown.

Conclusion: The High Court and State notifications are valid and were issued in consonance with Sections 9(6) and 11 CrPC; the State notifications implementing the High Court decision are not void.

Issue (ii): Necessity of affording the accused a hearing before the High Court issued the Section 9(6) notification.

Analysis: Section 9(6) has two parts: the first confers an administrative power on the High Court to specify places where Sessions Courts shall ordinarily sit; the second confers a judicial power on the Sessions Court to sit elsewhere in a particular case and expressly requires consent/hearing. The legislatures omission of any hearing requirement in the first part indicates a conscious exclusion of that procedural obligation for High Court administrative notifications. Established precedents recognise that administrative orders may not always attract full audi alteram partem and that review requires demonstration of prima facie denial of natural justice and substantial prejudice.

Conclusion: No statutory right to a pre-notification hearing arose under the first part of Section 9(6); the High Court was not required to afford the accused prior hearing before issuing the administrative notification.

Issue (iii): Whether trials held in the jail violated the requirement of open/public trial (Section 327 CrPC) or Articles 14 and 21.

Analysis: Section 327 deems any place where a criminal court is held to be an open court so far as it can conveniently contain the public; reasonable security-based access restrictions may be imposed by the presiding judge. Authorities establish that trials in jail are not per se invalid; the decisive test is whether the public had reasonable access and whether substantial prejudice to the accused resulted. The record shows public, press and the accuseds multiple advocates had access; measures (security checks, registration) were employed but did not amount to closure. The administrative objective of expeditious trial and considerations of security and public order provided a rational basis for the limited venue change; no arbitrary classification or deprivation of fair trial rights was demonstrated.

Conclusion: Holding the trials inside Siwan Jail did not, on the materials before the Court, violate Section 327 CrPC or Articles 14 and 21; no real prejudice to the accused was shown.

Final Conclusion: The notifications challenged were lawfully issued and implemented; the administrative exercise under Section 9(6) and establishment under Section 11 CrPC withstand judicial review on the record, and the appeal against the High Court order is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Courts power under the first part of Section 9(6) CrPC is administrative and does not require prior hearing of affected parties; a trial held inside jail premises is not invalid per se under Section 327 CrPC or Articles 14 and 21 provided the venue affords reasonable public access and no substantial prejudice to the accused is shown.

---