Classes of Criminal Courts are discussed in Section 6.
A key framework for the administration of criminal justice is outlined in Section 6 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which applies to all states. There are specific categories of criminal courts that are required to be present in every state, in addition to the High Courts and any other courts that may be established in accordance with laws other than this Sanhita. It is these courts that:
Tribunals of the Session
Magistrates of the First Class of the Judicial System
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Magistrates of the Second Class of the Judicial Officers
Senior Magistrates in Charge
The basis for the judicial hierarchy in topics pertaining to criminal cases is established by this classification. Different kinds of courts are responsible for different kinds of duties.
One example is that the Court of Session is responsible for handling more serious criminal matters, such as homicide and rape, but the Judicial Magistrates are in charge of handling less serious offenses. Instead of focusing on trial duties, Executive Magistrates are more concerned with administrative and preventative responsibilities.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
Jurisdiction and Determination of Territorial Divisions
Sessions Divisions, Districts, and Sub-Divisions are all broken down under Section 7.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 7, subsection (1), each state is required to either be a sessions division or to be divided into many sessions divisions.
As far as the Sanhita is concerned, these session divisions are considered to be districts, or they are composed of more than one district.
As a further explanation, a sessions division may consist of a single district or a number of districts that have been joined together for the purposes of the court system. Administrative convenience and improved management of court resources are both made possible as a result of this.
Subsection (2) grants the State Government the ability to alter the boundaries or number of such sessions divisions and districts; but, in order to carry out this adjustment, the State Government must first confer with the High Court.
The maintenance of checks and balances is ensured as well as judicial oversight is maintained.
According to subsection (3), the State Government has the authority to further divide any district into sub-divisions and to change the limits or numbers of those sub-divisions, once again in agreement with the High Court before doing so.
The jurisdiction of the numerous courts can be more efficiently organized with the help of this organizational framework. For the purpose of ensuring that justice is accessible to all, sub-divisions are frequently established on the basis of geographical area, population, and administrative requirements.
It is stated in subsection (4) that the sessions divisions, districts, and sub-divisions that were in existence at the time of the beginning of the Sanhita shall be assumed to have been constituted in accordance with this law.
This guarantees that continuity is maintained. This indicates that the existing judicial divisions will continue to function normally, unless they are modified in accordance with the provisions of this judicial section.
It is illustrated
If a state like Maharashtra has five big districts with expanding populations, the government has the ability to extend the number of sessions divisions from five to eight by splitting some districts or combining smaller areas in order to make the judicial processes more efficient. This can be done after conferring with the High Court.
The establishment of the Court of Session and its subsequent operations
The Court of Session is referred to in Section 8.
According to the provisions of subsection (1), the State Government is required to establish a Court of Session for each and every sessions division. Because of this, every sessions division is guaranteed to have a court that is solely devoted to the handling of major criminal cases.
Furthermore, according to the provisions of subsection (2), the High Court shall be responsible for appointing a judge to preside over each and every Court of Session.
Because of this, appointments are done under the supervision of the judiciary, which guarantees that judges who are both qualified and unbiased are selected.
It is possible for the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges for a Court of Session using the authority granted by subsection (3). In order to ensure that cases are resolved more quickly, these judges provide assistance to the Principal Sessions Judge and divide the duty.
The High Court has the authority to assign the Sessions Judge of one sessions division to the position of Additional Sessions Judge of another sessions division, as stipulated in subsection section 4. It is possible that the judge will be instructed to hear cases at any location within that other division in this particular instance.
Because of this flexibility, it is guaranteed that urgent proceedings will not be delayed because there are not enough judges.
The circumstances that are addressed in subsection (5) pertain to instances in which the Sessions Judge’s office is vacant. Whenever there is a pressing matter, the High Court has the authority to make arrangements for an Additional Sessions Judge to hear the case.
It is possible that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Sessions division will be the one to handle such applications in the event that there is no Additional Sessions Judge. This ensures that urgent judicial activity does not come to a halt owing to vacancies or absences in the court system.
It is illustrated
Consider the following scenario: the Sessions Judge at a sessions division in Uttar Pradesh suddenly decides to retire. In the event that an urgent situation arises, the High Court has the ability to swiftly designate the Additional Sessions Judge to handle it.
These proceedings may be temporarily handled by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the event that there is no Additional Sessions Judge available. This will continue until a new Sessions Judge is appointed.
In accordance with the provisions of subsection (6), a Court of Session is required to maintain its sessions in locations that have been designated by the High Court through the use of a notification.
However, in certain instances, the court may opt to sit at a different location within the sessions division if it is more convenient for the parties and witnesses. This decision must be made with the permission of both the prosecution and the accused.
This clause provides the courts with the ability to guarantee convenience and lessen the amount of difficulty experienced by people who are participating in the case.
It is illustrated
It is possible for the court to decide to convene hearings in a nearby town if both parties are in agreement.
This is the case when a case involves witnesses who reside in a rural village that is located a significant distance from the designated location of the Court of Session. The witnesses will see a reduction in time, effort, and expenses, as well as an increase in efficiency.
The Sessions Judge is given the authority to delegate duties to the Additional Sessions Judges through the provisions of subsection Seven.
It is imperative that this distribution is in accordance with the Sanhita. This internal allocation guarantees that the caseload is effectively handled and that no judge is overwhelmed with work.
The Sessions Judge is granted the authority to make preparations for the disposal of urgent applications in the event that he is absent or unable to act; this authority is granted by subsection (8).
It is possible for an Additional Sessions Judge or, in the event that they are not present, the Chief Judicial Magistrate to handle certain specific applications. It is generally agreed that they have the appropriate jurisdiction in circumstances like these.
Having this measure in place is essential in order to guarantee that the operations of the Court of Session continue without interruption, even in the event that the Sessions Judge is momentarily absent due to illness or other circumstances.
It is made clear in the explanation that is attached to Section 8 that the term “appointment” in this sense does not include the initial appointment, posting, or promotion that is made by the government to any service or post in connection with the business of the Union or a State.
It is not included in the definition of “appointment” that is discussed in this section if the government is required by law to make appointments of this kind. This eliminates any confusion regarding the functions of the several authorities that are involved in the nomination of judges.
Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 establish a framework that is both clear and thorough for the establishment and functioning of criminal courts throughout the states.
It is the responsibility of the Sanhita to guarantee that criminal justice is administered in a manner that is both efficient and equitable. This is accomplished by specifying the hierarchy of courts, their jurisdiction, and the administrative processes that are engaged in their functioning.
In addition to ensuring that judicial oversight is maintained by mandatory consultations with the High Court, the regulations have been meticulously crafted to provide for flexibility, local convenience, and effective administration of court resources.
The implementation of this system guarantees both order and adaptability, both of which are necessary for a country as huge and diverse as India.
