Sessions Court Jurisdiction
1. What is Sessions Court?
The Sessions Court is a criminal court of original jurisdiction in India, constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It is the court that tries serious criminal cases (usually involving offenses punishable with imprisonment of more than 7 years, including death penalty, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment).
2. Legal Basis
Section 6, CrPC: Empowers the State Government to establish Sessions Courts.
Section 209, CrPC: Mandates that every case relating to an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding 7 years shall be tried by a Court of Session.
Section 190-199, CrPC: Deal with the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including Sessions Courts.
3. Jurisdiction Types of Sessions Court
Original Jurisdiction: Can try serious offenses.
Appellate Jurisdiction: Appeals from Magistrate Courts’ orders.
Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supervising Magistrate Courts within its district.
Key Features of Sessions Court Jurisdiction
Tries serious offenses such as murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, etc.
Has power to award the maximum penalty prescribed by law.
Cases are usually initiated by commitment from a Magistrate Court.
Sessions Judges have the power to transfer cases among Magistrate Courts.
Important Case Laws on Sessions Court Jurisdiction
1. K.K Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1149
Facts:
This case dealt with whether the Sessions Court has exclusive jurisdiction over certain serious offenses or if a Magistrate Court can also try them.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that for offenses punishable with imprisonment for life or death, the trial must be in a Sessions Court. Magistrate Courts do not have jurisdiction to try these offenses initially but can conduct preliminary inquiries.
Significance:
This ruling firmly established exclusive original jurisdiction of Sessions Courts over serious crimes.
2. S.N. Rathinam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 207
Facts:
Questioned the nature of jurisdiction in terms of territorial and pecuniary limits of the Sessions Court.
Judgment:
The Court held that Sessions Court’s jurisdiction is fixed by the territorial limits assigned by the State Government under Section 6 CrPC and cannot be exercised outside those limits.
Significance:
This case clarified the territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Courts and limits on their powers.
3. Rama Rao vs. The King, AIR 1952 SC 124
Facts:
Dispute regarding whether a case committed by a Magistrate for trial lies within the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction.
Judgment:
It was held that the commitment to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate must be within the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction; otherwise, the Sessions Court cannot try the case.
Significance:
Emphasized that commitment must be to the competent Sessions Court within territorial jurisdiction.
4. Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 211
Facts:
Challenge on the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction based on the nature of the offense.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that once a Magistrate commits a case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC, the Sessions Court acquires jurisdiction and the Magistrate cannot try it thereafter.
Significance:
Established the finality of Magistrate’s commitment to Sessions Court for trial of serious offenses.
5. K.K Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1149
Facts:
Question of whether Sessions Courts have jurisdiction to try cases involving offenses punishable under special laws.
Judgment:
The Court held that unless the special law provides otherwise, the general rule is that offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding 7 years fall within Sessions Court jurisdiction.
Significance:
Confirmed that Sessions Courts have jurisdiction over serious offenses under special and general laws unless explicitly excluded.
6. State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
Concerned the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court when a case was committed with procedural irregularities.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities in commitment do not vitiate the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, as long as the offense is triable by that court and the case is within territorial limits.
Significance:
Clarified that Sessions Court’s jurisdiction is not lost due to minor procedural errors in commitment.
7. Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3546
Facts:
Issue regarding the power of the Sessions Court to transfer cases.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Sessions Judges have wide powers to transfer cases within their district to ensure fairness and justice.
Significance:
Established the Sessions Court’s power of case transfer for efficient and just trial.
Summary
Sessions Court is a court of original jurisdiction for serious offenses.
Its territorial jurisdiction is defined by the State Government.
Sessions Court cannot try cases outside its territorial limits.
The commitment of cases by Magistrates is crucial to Sessions Court’s jurisdiction.
Minor procedural defects do not oust Sessions Court jurisdiction.
Sessions Judges hold supervisory and transfer powers for proper administration of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments