ORDER This suo motu revision has been initiated by this Court based on the report received from the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore after inspecting the Assistant Sessions Court, Panruti for the purpose of deciding the question whether the case in SC No. 159 of 1992 for the major offence under Section 4 (1 -A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 can be proceeded further by the said Assistant Sessions Judge. 2. A case in SC No. 159 of 1992 filed under Section 4(1 -A) read with Sections 4 (1)(b), 4(1) (i), 5, 7 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti ever since 21.4.1992. 3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge having come across this case during the course of annual inspection thought it fit to refer the matter to this Court for clarification whether the Assistant Sessions Judge has the power to conduct the trial of the case filed under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as the punishment contemplated thereunder is vigorous imprisonment for life. 4. This Court having taken cognizance of this matter suo motu appointed Shri. B. Sriramulu, learned senior counsel as amicus curiae to assist this Court to thrash out the issues as to whether the Assistant Sessions Judge is competent to pass a verdict on the charge under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and whether a de novo trial will have to be ordered in case this Court finds that the Assistant Sessions Judge has no power to return a judgment in this case. 5. Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned senior counsel took this Court through various provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provision under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and submitted that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti was not competent to pass a final verdict in this case, inasmuch as life sentence has been contemplated under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, 1937. It is his further submission, referring to various authorities pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court, that the Principal Sessions Judge can continue the trial of the case, in case this Court finds that the Assistant Sessions Judge has no power to pass a verdict in this case. 6. It is his further submission, referring to various authorities pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court, that the Principal Sessions Judge can continue the trial of the case, in case this Court finds that the Assistant Sessions Judge has no power to pass a verdict in this case. 6. Coming to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that 36 persons had died and 19 persons had sustained serious injuries on account of the alleged consumption of illicit liquor which took place in the year 1990. Therefore, a case under Section 4(1-A) read with Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(i), 5, 7, and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 was booked against the accused and on transfer by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti has commenced trial and examined as many as 73 witnesses and marked 124 documents on the side of the prosecution. 7. It is found that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti had addressed the Investigating Officer concerned right from 1994 to consign the case properties recovered in this serious matter for the purpose of progressing the trial of the case. But, it is disturbing to note that the Prosecuting Agency has taken about 15 long years to entrust the properties to the custody of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti. It is reported that the properties were entrusted to the custody of the Assistant Sessions Judge only on 28.9.2005. 8. Of course, the prosecution had chosen to file an application before the very same Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti seeking transfer of the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, as the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti was not invested with the power to pass a life sentence as mandated under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The application should have been filed before the Principal Sessions Judge for such a direction. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti has chosen to dismiss that application, but unfortunately, no revision has been preferred as against that order by the Prosecuting Agency. There was also no progress in the trial after 15.12.2003, probably on account of the non production of the case properties by the prosecuting Agency as requested by the trial Judge. 9. As per Section 6 CrlPC, Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and in Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Magistrates and Executive Magistrates in a State are the Criminal Courts. 9. As per Section 6 CrlPC, Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and in Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Magistrates and Executive Magistrates in a State are the Criminal Courts. Section 6 does not speak about Assistant Sessions court. 10. Referring to Section 9(3) CrlPC, it is seen that the High Court is empowered to appoint Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court of Session as contemplated under Section 6 CrlPC. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti has been appointed to exercise the jurisdiction in the Sessions Division of Cuddalore. 11. As per Section 26 CrlPC, the offences under the Indian Penal Code may be tried either by the High Court or by the Court of Session. As far as the offences under any other law, it has been specifically mentioned that the Court of Session has the power to try offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than seven years. There is no separate classification as Assistant Sessions Judge under the classification of offences under other laws found under Schedule-I CrlPC. 12. Of course, Section 28(3) CrlPC mandates that Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding 10 years. The Assistant Sessions Judge, therefore, is not empowered to pass any sentence exceeding 10 years’ imprisonment. 13. The aforesaid provisions of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure would clearly disclose that the Assistant Sessions Judge is part of the Sessions Division. Trial procedure is one and the same for all Sessions Courts including Assistant Sessions Courts under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. Except the quantum of sentence, no variation in procedure is contemplated. 14. When the Assistant Sessions Judge has no power to award a sentence exceeding 10 years, he cannot pass a verdict for offences under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which contemplates the only punishment of life imprisonment and fine. Therefore, the case will have to be necessarily transferred to the Sessions Judge who is competent to pass such a sentence as contemplated under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,1937. 15. Therefore, the case will have to be necessarily transferred to the Sessions Judge who is competent to pass such a sentence as contemplated under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,1937. 15. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Judge should be directed to conduct a de novo trial in a case where as many as 73 witnesses have already been examined and 124 documents have been marked. 16. Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned senior counsel referred to the Authority reported in Bhaskar v. The State AIR 1999 SC 3539 wherein it has been held that when there is change of venue of trial, there is no necessity to repeat the whole exercise of examining the very same witnesses who had already been examined by the prosecution. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed that when a witness had already undergone the agony of deposing before the Court once, in connection with a particular case, he shall not be directed to undergo the agony once again for the very same case, unless such re-summoning is absolutely necessary to meet the ends of justice. 17. In this case, which originated in the year 1990, some of the witnesses might have died, some of them would have migrated from the original place of residence. They had already undergone the agony of deposing before the Assistant Sessions Judge. No prejudice will also be caused to the accused, if continuation of trial by the Principal Sessions Judge from where the Assistant Sessions left the Trial is ordered by this Court, as the accused had been given sufficient opportunity by the Assistant Sessions Judge to cross examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution. 18. The Assistant Sessions Judge had examined 73 witnesses and marked as many as 124 documents on the side of the prosecution adopting the procedure contemplated for conducting a Sessions trial. Therefore, de novo trial will definitely work hardship to the prosecution as well as to the witnesses who had already faced the ordeal of coming to the Court all the way from their residence for the purpose of deposing before the Court. So it is held that no de novo trial is warranted in this case on transfer. 19. The Court places on record the contribution made by Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned senior counsel in his capacity as amicus curiae to script this order. 20. So it is held that no de novo trial is warranted in this case on transfer. 19. The Court places on record the contribution made by Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned senior counsel in his capacity as amicus curiae to script this order. 20. In the result, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti is directed to send the entire records in SC No.159 of 1992 on his file to the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore who shall take up the matter on file and proceed with the trial of the case from where the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panruti has left. It is made clear that if re-summoning of witnesses already examined is required in the interests of justice, the Principal Sessions Judge has every power to re-summon the witnesses for the purpose of re-examination. As the matter is crying for justice for the past about 15 long years, the Principal Sessions Judge is directed to bestow his utmost attention to dispose of this case on priority basis as expeditiously as possible. The suo motu revision is ordered accordingly.