LexMD. SHAHABUDDIN versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 911
MD. SHAHABUDDIN
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2010)
MARCH 25, 2010
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
A
B
c
ss. 9(6), 11, 407 and 465 - Notification by High Court
shifting the venue of Court of Session inside the District Jail,
and Notification by State Government establishing Court of
Judicial Magisrate 1st class inside District Jail to try cases
pending against accused - HELD: Are valid - High Court in 0
exercise of its administrative power uls 9(6) is empowered to
shift the venue of the pending case/trial without hearing the
accused and this would not violate his fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 21 or any other provision of the
Constitution -
The power of High Court uls 9(6) is E
administrative in natur~ and as such, it is under no obligation
to observe the rule of audi alteram partem - By issuing the·
Notification, High Court cannot be said to have transfered the
cases pending against the accused - There was a shift
simpliciter in the venue of the trial without there being
anything more - Delay in publishing the Notification and F
supplying a copy thereof to accused would not vitiate the trial
as no prejudice is caused to him- Notification dated 7.6.2006
issued by State Government establishing the Court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class inside the District Jail satisfies all the
requirements of s. 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles G
14 and 21 - Principle of natural justice - Rule of audi
alteram partem - Interpretation of Statutes - Judicial Review
- Practice and Procedure.
911
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 3 S.C .. R.
A
s. 327 - Court to be open - Trial of accused inside the
jail - HELD: Open trial is an important part of judicial system
- Public access is essential to achieve the objective of
maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice
- Although the universal rule is that criminal trial should be
B
an open trial, but in exceptional cases, there can be deviation
from the rule in larger public interest - The instant case falls
in the category of and exceptional cases where, in the
interest of justice, it became imperative to shift the venue of
the . trials inside the jail - However, there is no presumption
C
that a trial in prison is not an open trial - Apart from the large
number of lawyers of the accused, press and those who want
to watch the trial have free access to the venue during the courl
proceedings - Thus, no prejudice is caused to the appellant
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 -
D Administration of Justice - Open trial.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 14 -
Equality before law -
Reasonable
classification - A classification may be reasonable even
E
though a single individual is treated as a class by himself -
· Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.9(6).
F
G
Plea:
New pleas regarding constitutional validity of s. 9(6) CrPC
and delay in publication of notification in official gazette and
in supply of copy thereof to accused raised at the time of
hearing of appeal before Supreme Court - HELD: Not
maintainable.
Evidence Act, 1872:
s.114, Illustration {e) - Presumption that official act has
been regularly performed - In the Notification issued by the
State Government stating that Courl of Session would hold
its sitting inside District Jail, apart from mentioning s.9(6)
H CrPC, s.14(1) of Bengal, Assam and Agra Civil Courts Act,
MD. SHAHABUDDIN v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
913
1887 also referred - HELD: If the notification refers to a wrong A
provision, the same cannot be held to be invalid when its
validity could be upheld on the basis of some other provision
- In the instant case, notification was valid in view of provisions
of s.9(6) CrPC- Besides statutory presumption as envisaged
by s. 114 Illustration (e) would also be available - Code of B
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.9(6) - Practice and Procedure.
The appellant, a sitting M.P., was involved in a large
number of criminal cases and, as such, was in custody
in District Jail, Siwan in the State of Bihar. The
Superintendent of Police reported that more than forty C
cases were pending against the appellant and there was
serious danger to public peace during his presence in
the court premises; that his supporters and other
criminals could attack the witnesses; that since the
appellant was accused in many cases, otherExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.