# accused before the courts even though an order passed by the Government under section

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 62/V11-C-31
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1978-06-09
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 62/V11-C-31
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/accused-before-the-courts-even-though-an-order-passed-by-the-government-under-163562
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

338
34.
PRODUCTION WARRANT
C.L. No. 62/V11-C-31 dated 9th June, 1978
The Court has noticed that criminal courts often insist on the production of the
accused before the courts even though an order passed by the Government under section
268 Cr.P.C. is in operation against the accused.
During the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Cr.P.C., the
accused are produced before criminal courts in pursuance of an order passed under
section 267 Cr.P.C. and so long as an order passed by the Government under section 268
Cr.P.C. in respect of any person or class of persons is in operation, it would not be
desirable for the criminal courts, to insist upon the production of any person or class of
persons before them and the courts should accept the statement given by the officer in
charge of the prison in this regard as contemplated under section 269 Cr.P.C.
35.
TRIAL UNDER MILITARY LAW
C.L. No. 20/VIII-a-69 dated 5th March, 1951 as amended by
C.L. No. 56/VIII-a-69 dated 30th May, 1951 read with
G.O. No. 303/VI-872-41 dated 14th February, 1951
The attention of all the subordinate courts is invited to the mandatory provisions
of sections 125 and 126 of the Army Act, 1950 and also to the rules made under section
549 (new section 475) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act -V of 1898),
contained in Appendix H of General Rules (Criminal), 1957, stressing the necessity of
strict compliance with the requirements laid down for the trial of persons subject to
military law.
C.E. No. 62/VII-a-83 dated 1st October, 1964
All the District Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges should
forward free of charge a copy of its judgment on conviction of military pensioners to the
pension-paying officer concerned and the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)
Allahabad to enable them to suspend convicted pensioners under the provisions of
Pensions Regulations for the Army/Air Force/ Navy. Rule 143(ii) of General Rule
(Criminal), 1957* (*now 1977 vide notification no. 504/vb-13; dated 05.11.1983) to be
followed strictly.
36.
PART HEARD CASE PENDING ON TRANSFER OF OFFICER
G.L. No. 492/67-2 dated 5th February, 1921
When an officer with a part heard sessions trial or other important case receives
orders of transfer, he must immediately make a full report to the High Court to enable it
to decide whether orders are required to detain him in order to enable such part heard
case to be completed before he leaves the station.
C.L. No. 88 dated 4th December, 1973
The following particulars must invariably be intimated to the Court immediately
on handing over charge by an officer regarding part heard sessions trials:
1.
Number of prosecution and defence witnesses in the part heard case.
339
2.
Number of each type of witnesses already examined and to be examined.
3.
Time already spent and time to be taken.
4.
Suggestions of the District Judge for the disposal of the case.
C.L. No. C.V./8/78 dated 6th October, 1978
The Presiding Officers should avoid keeping part-heard criminal cases pending
unnecessarily on their files.
C.L. No. 34/Admn. (A) dated 26th March, 1980
The successor Sessions Judge may resume trial of part heard sessions cases
keeping in mind section 326 of Cr.P.C. (As Amended by Central Act No. 45 of 1978)
which permits the succeeding officer to resume trial from the stage left by his
predecessor. Since section 326 relates to procedural law, it can apply to the sessions
cases pending since before the commencement of the amended Act.
C.L. No. 76/IV-e/Admn. (A) dated 15th September, 1980
The above mentioned circular is modified to the extent that its provisions shall
not apply to sessions trial that were pending on April, 1, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) came
into force.
C.L. No. 71/53B/Admn. (A) dated 7th November, 1983
Whenever any Additional Sessions Judge (including Additional District and
Sessions Judge) is transferred from one court to another court in a local arrangement, he
shall submit a list, of all the part heard sessions trials in which recording of evidence has
commenced, to the Sessions Judge, who shall record an order for transferring such trials
to the file of the court to which the Additional Sessions Judge has been transferred.
C.L. No. 41/VIIb-116 dated 2nd June, 1984
The attention of all the District Judges and C.J.Ms is invited to the full Court
judgment delivered in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of U.P. reported in 1984 All.
L.J. 666 regarding power of Sessions Judges to transfer part heard case or appeal from
court of an additional Sessions Judge to another competent court within his sessions
division.
C.L. No. 54/VIIC-25 dated 31st August, 1984
It invites attention of all the Sessions Judges to sections 6, 7 and 8 of the U.P.
Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, and says that the Sessions Judge is not competent to
entertain a transfer applications in respect of a case pending before the special court if
there is only one special court in the sessions division. The Sessions Judge can entertain
an application for transfer when there are two or more special courts in the sessions
division.
37.
EVIDENCE
G.L. No. 5 dated 7th March, 1952
Some Magistrates and Sessions Judges do not examine accused persons correctly.
This not unoften leads to a waste of the appellate court's time. Mistakes are also made by