JUDGMENT : Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2006 on the file of Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Pudukottai (Special Court for Essential Commodities and Narcotics Drugs) confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 03.04.2006 in Sessions case No. 2 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Pudukottai and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition as prayed for. 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The revision petitioners were shown as Accused in Crime No. 16 of 1999, on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukottai. The case was registered at the instance of PW-1 Thavamani, who is none other than the mother of the deceased-Selvi. The said Selvi had committed suicide by self immolation on 25.07.1999 at about 05.30 P.M. The matter was taken up for investigation and final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. The learned Sessions Judge had made over the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The charges had been framed under Section 304 (b) and 306 of I.P.C. By judgment dated 03.04.2006, the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 304(b) I.P.C. But were found guilty of the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment was imposed on them. Questioning the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2006, before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Pudukottai (Special Court for Essential Commodities and Narcotics Drugs). By judgment dated 19.10.2009, the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused was dismissed. Questioning the same, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners raised technical contentions that when the charge against the accused was also one under Section 304(b) of I.P.C. which was an offence punishable up to life imprisonment, the same could not have been tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Assistant Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners raised technical contentions that when the charge against the accused was also one under Section 304(b) of I.P.C. which was an offence punishable up to life imprisonment, the same could not have been tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate /Assistant Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. 4. Section 28 of Cr.P.C. states that the Additional 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 ten years. 5. Therefore even if the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 304(b) of I.P.C. he could not have imposed the sentence that is permitted by the provision. 6. The learned counsel drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Prabhakar L. Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2012 Crl. L.J. 4726 in which the following ratio had been laid down. He drew my attention to Paragraph No. 14 in the above said decision which reads as follows:- “14. We are therefore, of the view that in cases where the sentence which has to be awarded is more than 10 years, the Sessions Judge is not authorized to assign such cases to Assistant Sessions Judge in view of Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is a substantive provision in the Criminal Procedure and, therefore, Section 28 will have to be construed as a provision which imposes a bar on the Sessions Judge in assigning cases to the Assistant Sessions Judge where the sentence above ten years can be awarded.” 7. He also drew my attention to Section 461 of Cr.P.C. which talks about irregularities that vitiate proceedings. It is to the effect that if any Magistrate not being empowered by law in this behalf, tries an offender, his proceedings shall be void. It is not in dispute that one of the charge framed against the accused was under 304(b) of I.P.C. Applying the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to try such offence. Therefore, the entire proceedings are void. It is not in dispute that one of the charge framed against the accused was under 304(b) of I.P.C. Applying the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to try such offence. Therefore, the entire proceedings are void. The learned Trial Judge could not have acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 304(b) of I.P.C. Therefore, I hold that the proceedings of the Courts below are vitiated because they have not taken note of the statutory effect of Sections 28 and 461 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the judgments impugned in the Revision Petition are set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. The learned Principal Sessions Judge shall try the case himself or assign it to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I hold that assigning of this case to the Assistant Sessions Judge was clearly a nullity in law. Since the proceedings date back to the year 1999, the prosecution shall ensure that the entire proceedings are concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed on these terms.