ORDER
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Heard argument from learned counsel for both the parties and this application under Section 482, read with Section 407, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties.
2. Petitioners are the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2002 pending in the Court of Sessions Judge at Berhampur. That case arises out of G. R. Case No. 84 of 2000 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Purusottampur. Petitioner's application for taking of the case in the Circuit Court at Chhatrapur was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 23.4.2002 on the ground that he does not hold Sessions Circuit at Chhatrapur. Thereafter the present application has been filed, in which prayer has been made to issue a direction to the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial of the aforesaid case at Chhatrapur Circuit or to transfer the same to one of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial of the case at Chhatrapur Sessions Circuit.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that on 23.4.2002 learned Sessions Judge passed order under Section 228, Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 148/452/307/294/302/324/326/146, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, but on 1.7.2002 he recalled that order because the charge was framed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons. Mr. Nayak further states that if the Sessions Judge shall take up the trial of the case at Chhatrapur Circuit, then the petitioners have no grievance. He also states that direction be given for early disposal of the said Sessions Case.
Learned Standing Counsel while not disputing to the aforesaid facts and circumstances however states that it appears from order No. 4 dated 27.6.2002 that learned Sessions Judge has noted that due to inadvertence charge was framed against all the accused persons but he has not recalled the order of framing charge. Accordingly he states that this Court may issue appropriate direction in that respect so as to avoid any technical plea on the part of the accused persons at subsequent stage of the proceeding.
4. Hearing on the issue of framing charge is not a hollow formality. The trial Court must afford opportunity of hearing to the accused persons. When some of the accused persons were not defended by private defence on 23.4.2002, the matter relating to framing of charge could not have been considered on that date without asking the accused persons to engage a counsel or by appointing a State Defence Counsel, as the case may be. Since the Sessions Judge has recorded about the aforesaid mistake, it shall be proper on the part of the trial Court to afresh hear the parties on the question of framing of charge and thereafter to fix the date of trial.
5. When Chhatrapur has been declared as a place of Sessions Circuit, according to the prevalent procedure that Sessions Case should be taken up at the place of Circuit. This Court knows of no legal bar for the Sessions Judge to take up cases at the places of Circuit within his sessions division. However, in that respect he has to follow the procedure provided in the G. R. & C.O. (Criminal), Volume-l. Be that as it may, this Court has already taken a decision on the administrative side to set up a Fast Track Court at Chhatrapur and that Court shall be presided by an officer in the rank of Additional Sessions Judge. Under such circumstances, after receipt of this order, learned Sessions Judge may wait for a period of three weeks and within that period if a Fast Track Court shall not be created for Chhatrapur, then he may take up the case in the Sessions Circuit at Chhatrapur for the purpose of trial. Though trial of a case commences from the date of framing charge, yet if no other case is fixed for trial at Chhatrapur Circuit which is at present available with the learned Sessions Judge, then he may hear the parties under Section 228, Cr.P.C. at the headquarters but recording of evidence should be taken up at Chhatrapur by him if learned Sessions Judge decides to take up the trial of the case by himself. After consideration of charge if charge shall be framed against the accused persons, then trial of the case be expedited by avoiding unreasonable delay.
The Criminal Misc. Case stands disposed of as per the aforesaid observations and directions.