JUDGMENT The Court : Invoking this court's jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petition is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Calcutta, for a direction in exercise of power under sub-clause (6) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for holding court in connection with Sessions Case No.1 of 1997 (Sessions Trial No. 1 of June 1997) pending before Sri A.K. Bisi, learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, at Central Armoury of the West Bengal Police (Barrackpore) and at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai, for the limited purpose of identification of arms, ammunition and other explosives which are kept in the armoury and the aircraft which is kept at the international airport at Mumbai. Before the learned single Judge, however, the petition was not pressed for the holding of the court/trial at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai. It was urged, however, in respect of holding of trial for identification at the Central Armoury that huge number of arms and ammunition as also explosives were seized in the course of investigation of the case and those have been shown as relied upon articles in the charge sheet. It is urged since identification trial is necessary and due to security hazards and other potential risks and danger in carrying the arms and explosives, some of which were still alive, from Barrackpore Central Armoury to the precincts of the court, direction be issued for the trial for identification under section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at Central Armoury, Barrackpore. The prayer to the above effect was made before the trial court soon after the evidence of the first witness of the prosecution was recorded in part on 11.3.98–– The trial court held that unless a special direction was received from the High Court for holding court at Barrackpore, and also at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai, as the case may be, for the purpose of taking evidence of the concerned witnesses in the matter of identification of seized arms and ammunition and explosives and the aircraft, the court was not in a position to shift the venue at Barrackpore and Sahara International Airport for the purpose as stated leaving aside other pending civil and criminal cases of the court. 2. 2. Learned single Judge has recorded as follows:- "A simple question thus arises how to resolve the above impasse in course of the trial-in-question. The appropriate section as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was, obviously, clause (6) of section 9 which clearly speaks that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may by notification specify. It would be further relevant to point out that in normal course, a Sessions Judge appointed in one Session divisions sits for the hearing of the cases only within the Sessions division where he has been appointed as such. The law, however, does permit as contained in clause (4) of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Sessions Judge of one Session division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division". 3. Learned single Judge has referred to certain relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh and Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711 which reads as follows:- “The High Court can fix a place other than the court where the sittings are ordinarily held if the High Court so notifies for the ends of justice. However, the use of the word 'ordinarily' by itself signifies that the High Court in exercise of its power under section 9(6) may order the holding of court in a place other than the court where sittings are ordinarily held if the High Court thinks it expedient to do so and for other valid reasons such as security of the accused as well as of the witnesses and also of the court. The order of the High Court notifying the trial of a particular case in a place other than the court is not a judicial order but an administrative order” ** ** ** ** ** ** “It is unnecessary to hear the accused or anybody else before exercising the power under section 9(6). Such a hearing, however, is required to be given by the court of Session if it wants to change the normal place of sitting, in any particular case, for the general convenience of parties and witnesses." 4. Such a hearing, however, is required to be given by the court of Session if it wants to change the normal place of sitting, in any particular case, for the general convenience of parties and witnesses." 4. Learned single Judge has observed that a decision or direction under section 9(6) of the Code would be an administrative order and that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. He has added “I would humbly propose that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this court to consider the situation as referred to above and to issue a notification as it may be deemed fit for sitting of the Sessions Court i.e. the 4th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, at Barrackpore within the Sessions division of North 24 Parganas (Barasat). Learned single Judge has, accordingly, disposed of the application but made the reference as above to the Chief Justice to consider the situation and to issue notification, if deemed fit. On receipt of the above reference, however, the matter has been assigned for deciding as reference whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case power under section 9(6) of the Code can be exercised and whether petition for the above relief is competent. 5. Section 9(1) of the Code states that the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. Section 7 of the Code says; (1) Every State shall be a sessions division or shall consists of sessions divisions; and every session division shall for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts; provided that every metropolitan area shall, for the said purposes, be a separate sessions division and district. (2) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts. (3) The State Government, may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions. (4) The sessions division, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section. (3) The State Government, may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions. (4) The sessions division, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section. Sub-clause (6) of section 9 reads as follows :- “9(6) – The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein". 6. Thus the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily be sitting at such place or places as by notification specified. In any particular case, however, the Court of Sessions may, in consideration to the general inconvenience of the parties and witnesses hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division with the consent of the prosecution and the accused. The Court of Sessions, however, shall sit at its judicial discretion in consideration of the general convenience of the parties and witnesses at a place other than the place of sitting as specified by notification by the High Court but within the, sessions division i.e. within its territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case Barrackpore is outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court, thus, was not competent to decide to hold any sitting of the court at Barrackpore. This court, however, in exercise of its administrative power, as indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh and Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711 under section 9(6) of the Code can order for the sitting of the court at any other place even beyond the territory of the Sessions Court, however, for the purpose of the trial. 7. Trial before a Court of Sessions proceeds in the manner as provided under various provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Trial before a Court of Sessions proceeds in the manner as provided under various provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutor, under section 226 is required to open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing (section 227). If, however, the accused is not discharged and the charge is framed as contemplated under section 228 and there is no plea of guilt upon which conviction is recorded, the judge is required to fix a date for the examination of witnesses (sections 230-231). If the accused is not acquitted under section 232, after taking evidence for the prosecution and examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the accused, section 233 says, can be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. 8. Section 3 of the Evidence Act contains the definition of evidence to mean and include; (1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters, of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence. 'Fact' is defined under the said provision of the Evidence Act to mean and include; (1) anything, state of thing, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Thus, to prove a fact evidence is taken, which is either oral or documentary. Proof of facts by oral evidence is contemplated in Chapter IV of the Evidence Act. It provides that oral evidence must be direct (see, section 60). Thus, to prove a fact evidence is taken, which is either oral or documentary. Proof of facts by oral evidence is contemplated in Chapter IV of the Evidence Act. It provides that oral evidence must be direct (see, section 60). It contains, however, as a proviso the following :- “Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence of condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.” 9. Section 165 of the Evidence Act gives to the Judge power to put questions or order production of any document or thing in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts. These provisions thus leave no manner of doubt that although a thing including a material thing is a fact, its proof be by either oral or documentary evidence. Production is limited to the purposes, when the court thinks fit to inspect the same or in order to discover or to obtain proper proof thereof, orders for its production. 10. Power to seize a material thing or a property is controlled by sections 100 to 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When in the execution of a search warrant, certain properties are found, the Police or the officer effecting the search is required to prepare a list of things seized in the course of such search and to deliver a copy thereof to the occupant of the place or some person in his behalf and in case the seizure is done during the search of the person i.e. body of the person, a copy thereof to such person. Any Police officer, however, seizing any property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, is required to report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the court, he is empowered to give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the court as to the disposal of the same. It is not disputed before us that the Police has seized the material things and since seized things could not be conveniently transported to the court, are kept in Barrackpore Armoury. Since report of the seizure is already made to the court and the court is informed about the custody of the seized things/properties, it is obvious when its custody is given to another, that is, Barrackpore Armoury, it is subject to the order of the court. When such relevant provisions as above of the Code and the Evidence Act are scanned and thoroughly examined, what is effectively demonstrated is that the thing including material thing itself is not required to be tendered in evidence at all and if, for the reason that it is not convenient to bring it to the custody of the court, kept elsewhere, and oral evidence of the seizure is taken and the seizure list is proved, the court may require its production for inspection or to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Court shall, however, discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts by inspecting the thing, or material thing, that is property, and by not putting it in the basket of the evidence which must contain only oral evidence and documentary evidence. Section 310 of the Code gives to the Judge or the magistrate at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, the power to visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or any other place which, it is in his opinion necessary, to visit for the purpose of properly appreciating evidence, at such enquiry or trial. 11. We thus clearly find, from the above that seized thing or property will not be put in the basket of evidence and thus shall not be evidence in itself. Its production for proving a fact including factum of seizure in court is not contemplated by law. The court, for better appreciation of evidence or discovery of a fact, or for proper proof of a fact may order for its production and if production is not possible or is difficult it may hold local inspection which may include inspection of the seized property. The court, for better appreciation of evidence or discovery of a fact, or for proper proof of a fact may order for its production and if production is not possible or is difficult it may hold local inspection which may include inspection of the seized property. If these provisions are read harmoniously, it is irresistible that such material things or property, which cannot be conveniently brought before the court, can be inspected for discovery or better appreciation of the relevant fact by local inspection of the place where the thing or property is kept. The court, if property is in a bulk or large number, can order for production of specimen thereof for sample inspection. Since the law has taken care of such situations when a thing or property is not physically brought before the court, for the production of sample thereof for inspection or local inspection of the place by the judge himself, it is difficult to see any justification for the shifting of the venue of the court for evidence of identification of the seized property. Prosecution, in our view, shall not suffer and there shall be no prejudice to the interests of defence either if proof of seizure and custody of the seized property is brought before the court in accordance with law, and if the court desires inspection for identification of such seized property, it directs for such sample production which would be enough to meet the requirements of the proviso to section 60 of the Evidence Act aforequoted or section 165 thereof. If for better appreciation of evidence of seizure and/or any other relevant fact, it is necessary to see the bulk or the whole of the seized property, the judge can always hold local inspection after due notice to the parties. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered view that no administrative order for the trial at Central Armoury of West Bengal Police, Barrackpore for identification of arms and ammunition and other explosives seized in connection with the offence for which the opposite parties are put on trial is necessary. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered view that no administrative order for the trial at Central Armoury of West Bengal Police, Barrackpore for identification of arms and ammunition and other explosives seized in connection with the offence for which the opposite parties are put on trial is necessary. Such identification, as necessary, can be done by following the procedure as envisaged under section 60 of the Evidence Act read with section 165 thereof and if any further inspection of the arms, ammunition and explosives which are kept at Central Armoury of West Bengal Police, Barrackpore is felt necessary in course of the trial, the judge can always take recourse to the local inspection as contemplated under section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Requirement of production of the seized aircraft before the court shall arise only when the court shall think it necessary as contemplated under the aforementioned proviso to section 60 of the Evidence Act and since it cannot be brought before the court bodily, and it is necessary that it is inspected by the court, the court may take recourse to the provisions under section 310 of the Code. 14. We are of the considered view that the application before this Court, for the relief as above, is misconceived. The reference is answered accordingly. 15. Since reference is answered as above, no administrative order of the Court under section 9(6) of the Code is required. 16. Let this order be communicated to the Court below by Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioner. Reference answered in the negative.