JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - A sessions case pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack was fixed by him to be heard at Athgarh. This was opposed to by the accused on several grounds which are not necessary to enumerate. The prayer made before the learned Judge was that the case should be heard at Cuttack. He having rejected the prayer, this application in revision is filed by the Petitioners contending inter alia that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power to fix the hearing of the case at Athgarh. 2. Section 9 of the Code of Criminal procedure which deals with Court of Session provides in Sub-section (1) thereof that the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every Sessions Division, and appoint a Judge of such Court. Sub-section (3) empowers the State Government to appoint Additional Sessions Judge, and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in the Courts of Session established under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) consists of two parts. The first part empowers the State Government to direct by issue of a general or special order at what place or places the Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting. The second part of the sub-section gives power to the Court of Session (without any reference to the State Government) to hold its sitting at any other place which necessarily means places outside those fixed by the State Government under the first part of the sub-section and there is a rider attached to this part of Sub-section (2), namely, that the Court of Session can hold its sitting at a place other than the one filed by the State Government only with the consent of the parties, and if the Court is of opinion that it would tend to the general convenience of the parties. In exercise of the power conferred by the first part of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, the State Government have from time to time issued notifications fixing the places of sitting of the Court of Session at Cuttack. The latest notification which is issued in supersession of all previous notifications is Notification No. I.J. 68/68-3392/Judl. dated 6th April, 1968. In exercise of the power conferred by the first part of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, the State Government have from time to time issued notifications fixing the places of sitting of the Court of Session at Cuttack. The latest notification which is issued in supersession of all previous notifications is Notification No. I.J. 68/68-3392/Judl. dated 6th April, 1968. This notification which is issued in exercise of the powers of the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and by Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, directs that: The Court of the District and Sessions Judge of the Cuttack-Dhenkanal Judgeship and Sessions Division as reconstituted by the notification of the Government of Orissa in this Law Department No. 3387 dated the 6th April, 1968 may hold at its discretion sittings at Cuttack, Dhenkanal, Narasinghpur, Athgarh, Angul, Jajpur and Kendrapara for the disposal of business arising Gut of the areas comprised the said judgeship and Sessions Division. 3. Mr. Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners contends that the above notification is not one under the first part of Sub-section (2) because, according to him, (1) Discretion has been given to the Court of Session, and such discretion is not contemplated in Section 9 Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) this notification is a combined notification and not one exclusively u/s 9, Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, this must be deemed to be a notification under the second part of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure and since far the operation of the second part, the consent of the parties is pre-requisite and as admittedly the accused in this case have far from consenting to the holding of the Court at Athgarh, opposed such a move right up from the beginning, the holding of the Court by the learned Judge at Athgarh is illegal. 4. I am unable to accept any of the contentions. Section 14 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act is a provision corresponding more or less to Section 9, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relates to a Civil Court. It authorises the State Government by issue of a notification to fix and alter the place or places at which any Civil Court constituted under the Act is to be held. It authorises the State Government by issue of a notification to fix and alter the place or places at which any Civil Court constituted under the Act is to be held. As the State Government has to issue a notification both u/s 14 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act in respect of a Civil Court and u/s 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to a Court of session, the State Government obviously considered it expedient to issue one single consolidated notification under both the Acts. I fail to see how such a combined notification has affected the validity thereof. That this notification has given a discretion to the Court of Session, an expression not found in Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure would not in any way materially alter the effect of the notification. When under the notification, several places are indicated as places of sitting for the Court, necessarily it has to be left to the Court to decide in any particular case, having regard to the other circumstances of the case, as to which of the several places fixed as places of ordinary sitting the Court should sit to try that particular case. That necessarily would he the result of exercise of discretion by the Judge concerned. The contention of Mr. Sahu that the notification in question so far as it relates to Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be deemed to be one under the Second part of Sub-section (2) is absolutely without any force, because, the second part of Sub-section (2) does not at all require any notification of the State Government to enable the Sessions Court concerned to hear a case at a place outside those fixed by the State Government as ordinary places of sitting. By no stretch of imagination therefore can this notification be deemed to be one under the second part of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. A faint attempt was made? by Mr. Sahu to say that the power given under Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure must be deemed to have been given only to the Sessions Judge and that such power cannot be exercised either by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge. 5. A faint attempt was made? by Mr. Sahu to say that the power given under Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure must be deemed to have been given only to the Sessions Judge and that such power cannot be exercised either by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge. His contention is that for every Sessions Division, there can only be one Judge, called the Sessions Judge, and it is this functionary which is referred to in Sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) explicitly uses the expression "Court of Session" and not "Judge of such Court". In a Court of Session, there may be several Judges besides the Sessions Judge. When one talks there of a Court of Session, it refers to the Judge for the time being presiding over that Court. I am therefore clear in my mind that the power referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised not only by the Sessions Judge, but also by the Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges presiding over the Court of Sessions. All the contentions raised by Mr. Sahu therefore fail, and this application is dismissed. 6. I would, however, like to make it clear that this will not in any way affect the power of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, if he at any time considers necessary, to hold the trial of the case at Cuttack. Final Result : Dismissed