# permanent court and the temporary court of difficult and easy, long and short cases. The

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 71/VII-h-13
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1952-06-11
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 71/VII-h-13
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/permanent-court-and-the-temporary-court-of-difficult-and-easy-long-and-short-163673
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

416
there are strong reasons to the contrary, there should be an equal distribution between the
permanent court and the temporary court of difficult and easy, long and short cases. The
Sessions Judge can easily satisfy himself from the calendar or from glance through the
committal order and the Magistrate's estimate of the number of days likely to be taken in
the hearing whether a case is likely to be long and difficult, or short and easy. It appears
to the Court that certain Sessions Judges transfer cases as the result of a policy of
showing a good disposal in their own courts with a comparatively low disposal in the
courts of Additional Sessions Judges. The Court considers this to be bad administrative
policy and will make comment to that effect in future in the personal files of the judges
concerned.
No. 55/2007Admn. (G). Allahabad Dated: 13.12.2007.

The Hon'ble Court has taken serious note of the Magistrate Courts not observing
the provision as laid down in Rule 21 of the General Rules (Criminal), Sub Clause (ii) of
which provides that in case of transfer of a criminal case from the court of one Magistrate
to another magistrate a new serial and a number shall be given showing the new number
in the numerator and the old number in the denominator. The non-observance of this rule
has resulted in difficult to ascertain as to how old a particular case has become due the
said case not being decided by a particular court. Therefore, I have been directed to say
that every court of a magistrate shall ensure strict compliance of the Rule 21 of the
General Rules (Criminal) with all seriousness without fail.
I am to say further that kindly bring the contents of this circular Letter to notice of
all the magistrates working under your administrative control for strict compliance.
C.L. No. 71/VII-h-13 dated 11th June, 1952
All Sessions Judges should transfer a sufficient number of civil and criminal
appeals to temporary courts of Additional District Judges so that if for some reason
sessions trial cannot be proceeded with they may have some other work to fall back upon.
Ordinarily at least 50 criminal and civil appeals should be pending before an Additional
District Judge. If necessary, they should on days the work in the temporary courts falls
short also transfer to the temporary court any work available, which it is competent to try
so that there may be no waste of time.
C.L. No. 65/VIII-h/37/D R(S) dated 12th October, 1982

The cases pending in vacant court of Civil Judge, should be transferred to
different courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges, District Judge and to the court
of other Civil Judge, if any, posted in the judgeship.
C.L. No. 4/Admn.(A) dated 17th August, 1976

It invites attention to clause 53 added to Section 4 of the U.P. General Clauses
Act by Act No. 54 of 1975 according to which any reference to the ―District Judge‖ has
to be construed as including a reference to the ―Additional District Judge‖. This being the
position of the revisions filed before the District Judges can always be transferred to and
heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judges.
417
C.L. No. 163/IV-h-19/Admn.(A) dated 16th October, 1976

Only civil work should be allotted to some of the Additional District Judges and
only criminal work to rest of the Additional District Judges, depending on the pendency
of civil and criminal work in the judgeship. The changeover from civil to criminal and
vice-versa will be made yearly.
C.L. No. 63/IV h-14 dated 12th June, 1979

In future Sessions Judges should see that criminal revisions and equally
distributed for hearing in the file of Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges.
C.L. No. 108-B dated 17th October, 1952

Jail appeals need quick disposal and should normally not be transferred by
Sessions Judges to other courts.
C.L. No. 2041-B dated 2nd June, 1912
It should be clearly understood that extra officers are deputed to assist in the
disposal of work in those exceptional circumstances where arrears and institutions have
accumulated to such an extent as to make the reduction of work impossible by the efforts
of the ordinary staff. The posting of an extra officer is not therefore to be made the
opportunity for a permanent man to proceed on leave. This nullifies the whole object of
the creation of the additional post. Nor is it conducive to the expeditious dispatch of work
that the new officer should have made over to him old or part-heard cases, and this
practice where it exists should be discontinued. Additional staff can be best employed in
hearing appeals, whenever the officer is empowered to do this work, and in taking up
new cases as they arise. This results in a minimum dislocation of work and enables the
permanent staff to dispose of all its arrears.
C.L. No. 67/VIII-b-13 dated 12th August, 1968

In transferring cases, the District Judges should exercise their discretion in such a
manner as courts, which are already burdened, should not be burdened further. Courts
meant for doing civil work should primarily do civil work and criminal work should be
transferred to such court only when there is not enough civil work to keep them fully
occupied. Haphazard transfer of criminal work results in dislocation of civil work. It is
highly improper on the part of a District Judge to avoid doing civil work, which is
equally important.
C.L. No. 44/VIII-a-14 dated 22nd March, 1971

Bail and transfer applications should invariably be taken up by the Sessions Judge
himself unless for special reasons he is unable to do so. In case the bail applications are
entrusted to Additional or Assistant Sessions Judges, the record should be maintained by
the sessions clerk of the Sessions Judge, so that responsibility can be fixed on one official
for not pointing out that an earlier application has already been rejected. Every
application for bail must clearly indicate whether it is the first bail application or not and
if not, what order was passed on the earlier application.