# ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK OF COMMITTAL OF CASES AND

- **Citation:** C.L.No.19/
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2006-05-10
- **Case number:** C.L.No.19/
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/assignment-of-the-work-of-committal-of-cases-and-163665
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

414
76.
ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK OF COMMITTAL OF CASES AND
REMAND/BAIL BY MAGISTRATE LOCALLY PERTAINING TO
JURISDICTION
OF
OUTLYING
COURTS
IN
ALL
SESSIONS
DIVISIONS IN THE STATE OF U.P.
C.L.No.19/ 2006/ Dated Allahabad: May 10th May, 2006
 I am directed to say that after consideration of larger interest of society and
efficient functioning of the criminal Judicial Apparatus .the Hon'ble court has been
pleased to resolve as follows:-
i.
The committal and remand/bail work in sessions triable cases should not
be assigned to the outlying court where there is no sub-Jail.
ii.
The work of committal of cases and remand/bail for offences punishable
under section 302,304,304-B and 396 I.P.C. and under the N.D.P.S. Act
should be retained at the District Headquarter.
iii.
Committal and remand/bail of the offences of lesser gravity (other than
Section 302,304,304-B and 396 I.P.C. and under the N.D.P.S. Act,) triable
by the court of sessions may be assigned to the outlying courts where there
is sub jail.
iv.
A sub-copying section should be made functional under the senior-most
judicial officer of the outlying court for copying case diary/document in
respect of cases, committal proceeding of which to be handled there.
v.
The scheme of assignment of committal and remand/bail work, as
proposed here in above, in some measure should be kept flexible in case
some modification is required, keeping in view the condition of a
particular district. In that eventuality, the District Judge may approach the
High court setting out the detailed exceptional and special reasons seeking
modification in the above scheme for his district.
vi.
Such request of the District Judge concerned should be jointly examined
by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of that district and another Hon'ble
Judge of the Administrative Committee, to be nominated by Hon'ble the
Chief Justice. The report should then be placed befor the Administrative
Committee for appropriate orders as may be suggested by such two
Hon'ble Judges.

I am, therefore, to request you kindly to bring this fact to the notice of all the
Judicial Officers posted in your judgeship and ensure the compliance strictly.
=======
415
CHAPTER - XII
JUDICIAL-MISCELLANEOUS

1.
TRANSFER OF CASES
(i)
Regular cases
C.L. No. 51 dated 23rd September, 1960

Appeals from the orders and sentences of the Assistant Sessions Judges should
ordinarily be heard by Sessions Judges themselves and not transferred to Additional
Sessions Judges.
G.L. No. 42 dated 3rd November, 1932

The instructions given below apply to additional courts other than those, which
have been working regularly and are more or less in the nature of permanent courts or
additional courts created for the trial of particular cases.

There is a tendency in subordinate courts to postpone complicated cases and to
take up the disposal of such cases as are short or convenient and when an additional court
is created such old and complicated cases are often transferred to it in order to give relief
to the permanent court. The Presiding Officers of such additional courts are generally less
experienced than those of permanent courts, and such an arrangement is not satisfactory,
and is disapproved by the High Court.
C.L. No. 100-B dated 12th September, 1952

Stayed cases should not be transferred to additional courts of Civil Judges or
Munsifs. Old cases should be retained on the file of permanent courts and only fresh
institutions should be transferred to additional courts for disposal.
C.L. No. 43/IV-g-27 dated 13th April, 1979

The court has noticed that cases below Rs. 10,000/- in valuation are still pending
in the courts of Civil Judges and have not been transferred to the courts of Munsifs who
have been conferred with the powers to try such cases. Though the principle that cases
should normally be tried by the lowest court competent to try them cannot be given the
shape of a peremptory rule, the same cannot be ignored. It does not only save the time of
court of the higher jurisdiction for doing more important work but it also safeguards the
right of the litigants of having their first appeal heard and decided by the appellate court
of their respective districts. The above principle should always be kept in mind while
making distribution of the work in the district.
G.L. No. 9/B-9 dated 1st May, 1941

In transferring criminal cases, the practice of transferring only difficult and
complicated cases of the permanent judge's own file or lengthy and involved appeals is to
be deprecated. The Court is unwilling to lay down any hard and fast rule which might
inconvenience Sessions Judges in their discretion to transfer either cases from their own
file or new institutions to the additional courts, but the Court insists that Sessions Judges
must not place an unfair burden upon additional courts by giving to them only difficult
and complicated work. The Court suggests as a broad principle to be followed that unless