<h1>Section 408 transfer power is limited to pending cases before lower criminal courts, not appeals already reserved for judgment.</h1> Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was construed as limited to transfer of a case pending before a lower criminal court, and not extending to ... Power of Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C. - Distinction between judicial transfer power and administrative withdrawal under Sections 408 and 409 Cr.P.C. - Meaning of 'any particular case' and 'lower Court' in transfer provisions - Proviso to Section 407(2) Cr.P.C. and requirement of moving Sessions Judge before High Court - Doctrine of per incuriam - Binding effect of High Court precedents on subordinate courts within territorial jurisdiction - Commencement of trial / hearing and effect on recall/withdrawal under Section 409(2) Cr.P.C. Power of Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C. - Meaning of 'any particular case' and 'lower Court' in transfer provisions - Proviso to Section 407(2) Cr.P.C. and requirement of moving Sessions Judge before High Court - Distinction between judicial transfer power and administrative withdrawal under Sections 408 and 409 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Section 408 Cr.P.C. - whether a Sessions Judge may transfer appeals or part-heard matters pending before an Additional Sessions Judge, and whether Section 408 empowers transfer of cases of equal jurisdiction after commencement of trial/hearing. - HELD THAT: - The Court construed Sections 406-409 Cr.P.C. conjunctively and gave natural meaning to the phrases used in Section 408. Section 408(1) permits the Sessions Judge to order that 'any particular case' be transferred from one Criminal Court to another in his sessions division, and Section 408(2) refers expressly to the report of the 'lower Court'. The Court held that these expressions limit Section 408 to cases pending in criminal courts lower to the Sessions Judge (i.e., courts from which a transfer to another lower criminal court is envisaged) and do not extend to transfer of appeals or to cases already vested in a court of equal jurisdiction (such as an Additional Sessions Judge) once the trial/hearing has commenced. The proviso to Section 407(2) (requiring an application to the Sessions Judge before the High Court for transfers within the same sessions division) thus contemplates that the Sessions Judge's concurrent jurisdiction under Section 408 is confined to transfers from lower courts; appeals and cases made over to an Additional Sessions Judge fall outside the scope contemplated for transfer under Section 408 and, if appropriate, must be moved to the High Court under Section 407. The Court emphasised that the administrative recall/withdrawal power under Section 409(2) is distinct and is limited to withdrawal/recall before the commencement of trial or hearing in the Additional Sessions Judge's court; Section 409 cannot be circumvented by an indirect exercise of Section 408 to achieve what Section 409 forbids after trial/hearing has begun. The statutory scheme, text and context therefore require that transfers under Section 408 be read as applying to 'particular cases' in lower courts and not to appeals or part-heard sessions trials in courts of equal jurisdiction after hearing has commenced. [Paras 102, 106, 150, 154, 238] Section 408 Cr.P.C. does not empower the Sessions Judge to transfer appeals or part heard matters from an Additional Sessions Judge after commencement of trial/hearing; transfers under Section 408 apply to 'particular cases' in lower courts and appeals/part heard matters must be approached under the scheme provided (including Section 407 to the High Court). Commencement of trial / hearing and effect on recall/withdrawal under Section 409(2) Cr.P.C. - Distinction between judicial transfer power and administrative withdrawal under Sections 408 and 409 Cr.P.C. - Whether the Sessions Judge can withdraw/recall or transfer cases/appeals under Section 409(2) after the commencement of trial/hearing. - HELD THAT: - The Court analysed the statutory language and authorities on when a trial/hearing is said to have commenced. Section 409(2) permits recall/withdrawal of cases or appeals made over by the Sessions Judge to an Additional Sessions Judge only 'at any time before the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced before such Additional Sessions Judge.' The Court held that where hearing/adversarial arguments are complete and matters are posted for judgment (i.e., the hearing is over), the Sessions Judge cannot thereafter invoke Section 409(2) to withdraw or recall proceedings. The court pointed out that the petitioners in the present matters sought transfer after appeals were posted for judgment and after hearings were concluded; accordingly Section 409(2) could not be invoked. [Paras 138, 141, 142, 238] Section 409(2) cannot be invoked to withdraw or recall cases or appeals once the trial or hearing has commenced or, as here, after hearings are complete and matters are posted for judgment. Doctrine of per incuriam - Whether the Madras High Court's decision in Devarasu v. State was rendered per incuriam and therefore not binding. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the meaning and narrow ambit of per incuriam and the authorities cited by petitioners. Having reviewed Devarasu's reasoning, statutory analysis and consideration of relevant provisions and decisions, the Court concluded that Devarasu had not acted in ignorance of any binding statute or higher binding authority and thus could not be treated as per incuriam. The petitioners' contention that Devarasu should be disregarded as per incuriam was rejected after analysing the judgments and the applicable principles on per incuriam. [Paras 65, 72, 76, 77] The contention that Devarasu's decision is per incuriam is rejected; Devarasu remains a valid authority for the purposes relevant to this matter. Binding effect of High Court precedents on subordinate courts within territorial jurisdiction - Whether decisions of other High Courts bind subordinate courts and inferior forums within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court restated the constitutional and hierarchical principles: a High Court's decisions bind subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction (Article 227 and supervisory provisions). Decisions of other High Courts, even if by larger Benches, have only persuasive value and are not binding on subordinate courts in this State where this Court has laid down the law. The Court observed that accepting the petitioners' submission that decisions of other High Courts bind subordinate courts here would be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme and produce chaos; each High Court may independently interpret central statutes within its jurisdiction, and subordinate courts must follow the law declared by their own High Court. [Paras 183, 189, 194, 234] Decisions of other High Courts are persuasive but not binding on courts and tribunals within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court; subordinate courts must follow decisions of this Court. Maintainability of transfer petitions under Section 408 Cr.P.C. in the present proceedings - Commencement of hearing and propriety of seeking transfer after posting for judgment - Whether the transfer applications in the present matters (seeking transfer of appeals after hearings were concluded/posted for judgment) were maintainable and whether the impugned orders dismissing those transfer petitions were vitiated by manifest illegality. - HELD THAT: - Applying the principles established above - that Section 408 is confined to 'particular cases' in lower courts and Section 409(2) cannot be invoked after trial/hearing has commenced - the Court examined the facts: the appeals had been heard and were posted for judgment when transfer petitions were filed. The Court held that the Sessions Judge correctly considered the statutory scheme and relevant precedents in dismissing the transfer applications as not maintainable. The petitioners effectively sought transfer of appeals after hearing had concluded; such recourse is not available under Section 408/409 and the correct remedy (if any) lay under Section 407 before the High Court in appropriate circumstances. There was no manifest illegality requiring interference. [Paras 91, 142, 234, 238] The transfer applications filed after hearing and posting for judgment were not maintainable; impugned orders dismissing those petitions do not suffer from manifest illegality and the revision petitions are dismissed. Final Conclusion: The criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The Court holds that Section 408 Cr.P.C. authorises the Sessions Judge to transfer 'particular cases' from lower criminal courts and does not empower transfer of appeals or part heard matters from an Additional Sessions Judge after the commencement of trial/hearing; Section 409(2) cannot be invoked once hearing/trial has commenced; the Devarasu decision is not per incuriam and remains authoritative here; decisions of other High Courts are persuasive only and not binding on courts within the Madras High Court's territorial jurisdiction; accordingly the transfer applications challenged in these proceedings were not maintainable and there is no ground for interference. Issues: (i) whether the Sessions Judge could transfer the appeals under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the appeals had been heard and reserved for judgment; (ii) whether the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge is a lower court for the purpose of Section 408 and whether the transfer petitions could be maintained in view of the binding effect of the Madras High Court decision.Issue (i): whether the Sessions Judge could transfer the appeals under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the appeals had been heard and reserved for judgment.Analysis: The power under Section 408 was construed in the setting of Sections 407, 409 and 412 of the Code. The expression 'any particular case' in Section 408 and the words 'lower Court' in Section 408(2) were read together to mean that the power of transfer is confined to a case pending before a lower criminal court. The Court further held that Section 408 does not extend to an appeal, because the provision uses the word 'case' and omits 'appeal'. Since the appeals had already been heard and were posted for judgment, the stage for any such transfer had passed.Conclusion: The transfer of the appeals was not permissible under Section 408, and the objection to maintainability failed against the respondent.Issue (ii): whether the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge is a lower court for the purpose of Section 408 and whether the transfer petitions could be maintained in view of the binding effect of the Madras High Court decision.Analysis: The Court held that the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge is not a lower or subordinate court to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of Section 408. It further held that the earlier Madras High Court decision could not be treated as per incuriam, and that subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court are bound by the law declared by that High Court. Decisions of other High Courts were treated as persuasive only and could not override the binding force of the local High Court's ruling.Conclusion: The transfer petitions were held to be not maintainable, and the challenge to the refusal of transfer failed.Final Conclusion: The revision petitioners were not entitled to transfer of the appeals, and the impugned orders rejecting transfer were left undisturbed.Ratio Decidendi: Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to transfer of a case pending before a lower criminal court, and does not authorise transfer of an appeal or of a matter already heard and reserved for judgment before an Additional Sessions Judge.