Choudhary, J.

(1) This is a complainants appeal under Section 417 sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and raises an important question of Jaw 35 to the interpretation of sections 408 and 409 of the Code as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (26 of 1955).

(2) The facts lie within a short compass. On the complaint of the appellant a case of assault was started against the respondent. The case was tried by a Munsif-Magistrate of Sasaram exercising second class powers. The learned Munsif-Magistrate by his order dated the 12th November, 1956 convicted the respondent under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The respondent preferred an appeal against his conviction in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Sasaram on the 16th November 1956. The order-sheet of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of that date runs thus:

"

1. 16-11-56. Appeal filed which is within time. Admit. Issue notice, call for the record and fix 13-12-56 for hearing. Stay realisation of fine till final disposal of the appeal."

The appeal was heard on the 13th December J956 and on the 17th December 1956 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed orders allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of the respondent. The present appeal is directed against this order, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as he had no powers to receive and admit the appeal and further to hear it himself in contravention of sections 408 and 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3) Before I deal with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant I set out below the relevant portions of sections 408 and 409 of the amended Code which deal with the filing of appeals and the hearing of such appeals. Section 408 runs thus:--

"Any person convicted on a trial held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, a District Magistrate or any other Magistrate or any person sentenced under section 349 or in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 380 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session",

Then follows a proviso with which we are not concerned. It would be noticed that the only amendment affected in the passage quoted above by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (26 of 1955) was that the words "other Magistrate of the first class" which occurred in the original section were substituted by the words "any other Magistrate". Similarly the words "by any Magistrate" were substituted by the amending Act for the words "by a Magistrate of the first class" appearing in the section prior to the amendment.

(4) Section 409 makes the folio wing provision, for the hearing of criminal appeals: . .

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an appeal to the Court of Session or Sessions Judge shall be hoard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge: Provided that no such appeal shall be heard by an Assistant Sessions Judge unless the appeal is of a person convicted ph a trial held by any Magistrate of second or third class. (2) An Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge shall hear only such appeals as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct or as the Sessions Judge of the division may make over to him."

Section 408 is a general provision conferring a right of appeal to the Court of Session in the cases mentioned therein while section 409 indicates where and by whom such appeals are to be heard. The Sessions Judge as well as Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges appointed under Sub-section (3) of section 9 are all empowered to hear these appeals. In the case of an Additional Sessions Judge and an Assistant Sessions Judge, however, there are certain restrictions. They can hear only such appeals as the State Government may by general or special order direct or as the Sessions Judge may make over to them. In the case of an Assistant Sessions Judge there is a further limitation, viz., that he cannot hear any appeal unless it is of a person convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate of second or third class. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, appearing for the appellant, contends that the words "may appeal to the Court of Session" occurring in section 408 mean "the Court of Session" presided over by the Sessions Judge. It is urged that although an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge exercises jurisdiction in a Court of Session he does so to the limited extent of only hearing such appeals as are transferred to him by the State Government or by the Sessions Judge in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section 409 and is not empowered to receive and admit an appeal which has in all cases, to be filed in the Court- of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. It is argued that if a person convicted by a Magistrate of the second or third class chooses to appeal to an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge on the ground of his being a Court of Session, that appeal cannot, in view of Sub-section (2) of section 409 be heard by him in the absence of a direction from the State Government at transfer of the appeal to him by the Sessions Judge.

(5) The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that since an Assistant Sessions. Judge is also a Court of Session there is no bar to an appeal being filed in that Court by a person convicted by a Magistrate of the second or third class under Section 408 of the Code According to learned counsel such appeals constitute a separate class of appeals which an Assistant Sessions Judge is by implication empowered to hear quite apart from the other kind of appeals which are made over to him for hearing under orders of the State Government or the Sessions Judge.

(6) In my opinion the contention of Mr. Rameswar Prasad Sinha that the words "Court of Session" occurring in Section 408 refers only to the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge and that an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge, as a judge of the Court of Session, has no powers to receive such appeals is well-founded. The contrary view urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader seems to me to be unacceptable.

(7) Look at the matter from any point of view one may, there is, in my view, no escape from the conclusion that the words "Court of Session" in Section 408 mean the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge of the Sessions division. Section 9 of the Code provides for the establishment of a Court of Session for every sessions division and it is obligatory upon the the State Government to appoint "a judge" of such Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 provides that the State Government may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more such Courts. The words "one or more such Courts" in this Sub-section have reference to sub-section (2) which lays down that the State Government may, by general or special order in the Official Gazette, direct at what place or places the Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting. When a Court of Session holds its sitting at several places the Judges presiding over those sittings function only as constituent parts of the Court of Session, which is one and the same. This is further made clear by Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Code which is as follows.

"All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction, and he may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges".

An Assistant Sessions Judge, therefore, who exercises jurisdiction in the Court of Session has no separate or independent entity in the sense that the Court over which he presides while exercising such jurisdiction does not constitute an independent Court of Session within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Code.

(8) This question came up for decision in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal v. Ijjatulla Paikar, 32 Cri. L. J. 842: (AIR 1931 Cal 190 [LQ/CalHC/1930/303] ) (A). "Lort-Williams, J. sitting in that cage with S.K. Ghose, J. interpreted the implication of Section 9 thus:-- "Under Section 9, Criminal Procedure Code, the Local Government is empowered to establish a Court of Session for. every Sessions division, and to appoint a Judge of such Court and Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in such Court, and to direct at what place or places the Court of Session shall sit. Thus there is only one Court of Session in teach Sessional division, sitting at different places, and manned by a number of Judges. The Court is the Court of Session. It is not accurate to refer to the Court of the Sessions Judge, and the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge and so on, except colloquially. Just as in the High Court, we do not refer to the constituent Courts as the Courts of any particular Judge, either permanent or additional. There is, therefore, no doubt that there can be only one Court of Session in a Sessions division. To the extent it goes the Calcutta case, therefore, supports the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant.

(9) That the words Court of Session occurring in Section 408 of the Code refer only to the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge seems to me to be abundantly clear. Subsection (1) Of Section 409 provides that subject to certain limitation laid down in the section an appeal to the Court of Session or Sessions Judge shall be heard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge. The Legislature, therefore, clearly intended that the words Court of Session occurring in Section 408 meant the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. This section is a clear authority for the proposition that an appeal can lie only to the Court of Session which is synonymous with the expression Sessions Judge who presides over such Court.

(10) The contrary view urged by, the learned , Additional Government Pleader would, in my opinion, lead to extravagant results. If the words Court of Session occurring in Section 408 include also Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges who exercise jurisdiction in such Courts, extravagant results would follow. This section provides for appeals from sentence passed by a District Magistrate or any other Magistrate or by an Assistant Sessions Judge. If the interpretation sought to be put upon this section is correct a person convicted by a District Magistrate or an Assistant Sessions Judge may also appeal to the Assistant Sessions Judge which would be manifestly illegal. Further as there are usually several Assistant Sessions Judges in a Sessions division it would be quite open to a convicted person to appeal to any of these several Assistant Sessions Judges. In other words, he would be entitled to choose his own forum. These results could never have been in , tended by the legislature. It is an accepted principle of interpretation that, where alternative constructions are open the Court will adopt thai construction by which the intention of the legislature will be better effectuated or which will be consistent with the smooth-working of the system which the statute purports to regulate and that, alternative is to be rejected which will introduce1 uncertainty, friction or confusion into the Working of the system. The extravagant results pointed out above can be avoided and the intention of the Legislature will be better effectuated if it is held that the words Court of Session in Section 408 of the Code refer to the Court of Session presided ever by the Sessions Judge. This will do away with all uncertainty, friction or confusion and maintain a logical pattern of procedure making for smooth working of the system.

(11) The argument that since an Assistant Sessions Judge is empowered to hear appeals from convictions recorded by second or third class Magistrates he is by implication entitled also to receive and admit such appeals is, to my mind, quite unsound. There is no authority for the view that the right to hear an appeal includes also the right to receive and admit such appeal. That the Legislature never intended the one to include the other is evident from the old Section 407 which has been repealed. That section ran as follows:--

"(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by any Magistrate of the second or third class, or any person sentenced under Section 349 or in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 380 by a Subdivisional Magistrate of the second class, may appeal to the District Magistrate. (2) The District Magistrate may direct that any appeal under this section, or any class of such appeals, shall be heard by any Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him and empowered by the State Government to hear such appeals, and thereupon such appeal or class of appeals may be presented to such subordinate Magistrate, or, if already presented to the District Magistrate, may be transferred to such subordinate Magistrate. The District Magistrate may withdraw from such Magistrate any appeal or class of appeals so presented or transferred. It will be noticed that although Sub-section (2) authorised a District Magistrate to direct that any appeal under this section or any class of such appeals were to be heard by any specially empowered Magistrate of the first class a separate statutory provision was considered necessary for presentation of such appeals or class of appeals to such subordinate Magistrates. If the power to hear appeals included also the power to receive such appeals on presentation no such separate provision would have been necessary in regard to the latter."

(12) It follows, therefore, that it was not the, intention of the Legislature that the power given to Assistant Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges to hear appeals under Section 409 should include also the power to receive and admit such appeals.

(13) Learned Counsel for the appellant has , invited our attention to various sections of the Code and has urged that wherever the expression Court of Session occurs the Legislature clearly intended it to mean the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. He has in particular referred to Sections 17, Sub-section (3), 193, 406 and 406A. There is no doubt that in all these sections, the Court of Session was meant to be the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. Inded, it is well known that prior to the amendment of 1955 all appeals contemplated in Section 408 used to be filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge only. The amendment to the section by no means enlarged the powers of the other judges exercising powers in the Court of Session so as to include the power to receive and admit appeals. One of the rules of interpretation of a statute is that "when the same words or phrases are used in different parts of the same statute, they would ordinarily receive the same meaning, unless the context or the object requires otherwise. There is no sufficient reason, from the context of Section 408, to construe the words Court of Session in a sense different from that which it bears in other parts of the Act.. (14) There is another aspect of the matter which, I think sets all doubts at rest. Sub-section 1(2) of Section 409 makes it perfectly clear that an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge shall hear only such appeals as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct or as the Sessions Judge of the division may make over to him. It is, therefore, clear that all appeals mentioned in Section 408 are to be received by the Sessions Judge and that an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge can hear only such, of those appeals as are made over to them by the Sessions Judge or which they may be empowered to hear by a general or special order of the State Government. If an Assistant Sessions Judge had powers to receive an appeal there would be no question of any appeal, being "made over to him by the Sessions Judge". The words as the Sessions Judge Of the division may. make over to him indicate beyond all doubt that all appeals are at the first instance to be filed in the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. Any other view would render Sub-section (2) of Section 409 wholly nugatory. A statute ought to be so interpreted that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant. The construction of Section 408 suggested by the learned Additional Government Pleader will leave without effect the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section, 409 and is hence unacceptable.

(15) In the result, I hold that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the present case had no authority to receive and admit the appeal and that he heard it in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 409 of the Code. His order acquitting the respondent was clearly without jurisdiction and must be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent is set aside. Jamuar, J.

(16) I agree. I am clearly of the opinion that it was beyond the competency of the Assistant Sessions Judge to receive and admit the appeal filed before him. The procedure adopted was entirely erroneous. The Assistant Sessions Judge could not assume jurisdiction to receive and admit the appeal and then proceed to hear it without reference to the Sessions Judge. . The appeal had to be preferred in the court of the Sessions Judge and, if admitted by him, it lay within the discretion of the Sessions Judge to transfer it to the Assistant Sessions Judge: for hearing. In this view, fhe Assistant Sessions Judge in the present case was wholly in error in adopting the procedure which he did and, therefore, his judgment and order passed in the appeal is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.

(17) I agree. The question presented for our decision in this case is whether an Assistant Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to receive and admit an appeal filed under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter to proceed to hear and dispose of it.

(18) Four broad propositions appear to me to follow clearly from the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). The first proposition is that there can be only one Court of Session in a Sessions division and there can be only one Judge of that Court or, in, other words there can bs only one Sessions Judge in a Sessions division. It is incumbent upon the State Government under subsection (1) of Section 9 to establish the Court and to appoint the Judge. While the State, Government has power under Sub-section (3) of that section to appoint any number of Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one Court of Session, it has no power to appoint more, than one Judge of that Court. The words one or more such Courts in Sub-section (3) do not, in my opinion, refer to Sub-section (2) of Section 9 but they refer to one or more Courts of Session. Hence, the State Government may, under Sub-section (3), appoint one and the same person to be an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge of more than one Court of Session, and, in that case the person so appointed can exercise jurisdiction in each of such Courts. Reference may in this connection, be made to Sub-section 4 of Section 9 which provides that a. Sessions Judge who is the Judge of one Court of Sessions may be appointed to be an Additional Sessions Judge of another Sessions division so that he may exercise jurisdiction in the Court of Session established for that division also.

(19) There can be no such Court as an Additional Court of Session to be presided over by an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Court of Session to be presided over by an Assistant Sessions Judge. This is clear from Section 6 which enumerate the classes of Criminal Courts established in India. The second proposition, therefore, is that a court, presided over by an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge is also a Court of Session. Since there cannot be more than one Court of Session in one Sessions division, it has to be held that a Court presided over by ah Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge is a part or constituent of one and the same Court of Session which is headed by the Sessions Judge. So far as an Assistant Sessions Judge is concerned, Sub-section (3) of Section 17 makes it perfectly clear that he is subordinate to the Sessions Judge, and that he exercises jurisdiction in the Court of that Sessions Judge.

(20) The third proposition is that the Sessions Judge has complete jurisdiction, by virtue of his position as Judge of the Court Of Session, to receive, hear and dispose of all matters such as applications, appeals or cases which are required by law to be submitted to, or filed in, the Court of Session. An Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge, however, is not competent, by virtue of his office, to receive, hear or dispose of any matter submitted to, or filed in, the Court of. Session in which he exercises jurisdiction. He gets jurisdiction to deal with such a matter only when it is placed before him either under a general or special order of the State Government or a general or special order of the Sessions Judge of the division. Several sections of the Code may be referred to in support of this proposition.

(21) Sub-section (4) of Section 17 lays down that the Sessions Judge may, when he is absent or incapable of acting, provide for the disposal of any urgent application by an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge, or, in the absence of any such Judge, by the District Magistrate. This Sub-section makes two points perfectly clear. Firstly, all applications which are required by law to be filed in the Court of Session, e.g., an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 497 for cancellation of bail or an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 498 for grant of bail, must be filed before the Sessions Judge. He has full power to dispose of all" such applications and he has also power, in the circumstances referred to in Sub-section (4) of Section 17, to authorise a particular officer to dispose of only urgent applications. Secondly, an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge, has, in the absence of authorisation by the Sessions Judge under the Sub-section, no power to receive or dispose of an application which is filed in the Court of Session unless it is an application filed in connection with any matter which has legally come within his seisin.

(22) Sub-section (2) and Sub-section 3-A of Section 123 of the Code provide for proceedings being laid before the Sessions Judge in certain cases. Under Sub-section 3-B of that section, a Sessions Judge may transfer any such proceeding to an additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge, and it is only upon such transfer that an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge can exercise the powers of the Sessions Judge under section 123 in respect of the proceeding transferred to him.

(23) Section 193 of the Code relates to cognizance of an offence by a Court of Session as a Court of original jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of that section provides that an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge can only try such cases as the State Government, by general or special older, directs him to try or such eases as the Sessions Judge of the division, by general or special order, makes over to him for trial. In view of this Sub-section, it is manifest that an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge cannot exercise original jurisdiction in, the matter of trial of any case unless the case comes before him under any direction of the State Government or the Sessions Judge. Section 409 relates to the tearing of appeals to the Court of Session. The language used in Sub-section (2) of section 409 is very similar to that used in Sub-section (2) of section 193. An Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge cannot, therefore, hear any appeal unless the appeal comes before him under any direction of the State Government or the Sessions Judge.

(24) A Sessions Judge can exercise certain powers in respect of different kinds of cases under Sections 435, 436, 437 and 433 which fall in Chapter XXXII of the Code. Under Sub- section (2) of section 438, an Additional Sessions Judge can exercise all the powers of a Sessions Judge under that Chapter only in respect of such cases as are transferred to him under any general or special order of the Sessions Judge.

(25) In my opinion, the above provisions fully substantiate the third proposition as I have put it.

(26) The fourth proposition is that an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge exercises full powers of a Court of Session subject only to such limitations or restrictions as are expressly placed upon his powers by law in respect of cases which are legally placed before him for disposal. An Additional Sessions Judge has, in cases within his seisin, the same powers as a Sessions Judge. In cases in respect of which an Assistant Sessions Judge exercises original jurisdiction, he is not empowered to pass a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years-- vide Sub-section (3) of section 3

1. So far as appeals are concerned, the proviso to Sub-section (1) of section 409 lays down that an Assistant Sessions Judge can only hear the appeal of a person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate of second or third class. An Additional Sessions Judge, or, subject to the restrictions which I have just mentioned, an Assistant Sessions Judge, can exercise the powers of a Court of Session in the case before him. The expression Court of Session in Sections 268, 269, 274 (2) and 373, for example, must be understood to refer to the Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge, as the case may be, in regard to the case tried by him. An Assistant Sessions Judge cannot pass a sentence of death, and hence the expression Court of Session in section 374 cannot apply to an Assistant Sessions Judge. It clearly applies, however, , to a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in respect to the case tried by him.

(27) In view of the fact that the expression Court of Session in some sections refers also to an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge, as the case may be, it is impossible to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Sinha for the appellant that wherever that expression is to be found in the Code, it must be held to refer to the Court of Session presided over by the Sessions Judge. I have already mentioned, however, that the expression Court of Session does refer only to the Court presided over by the Sessions Judge in respect to all matters such as applications, appeals and cases which are filed before or submitted to the Court of Session and are not placed before an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge under appropriate directions of the State Government or the Sessions Judge.

(28) Under section 408 of the Code, an appeal lies to the Court of Session not only from the Judgment Of a Magistrate but also from the judgment of an Assistant Sessions Judge. It is quite impossible to accept the learned Additional Government Pleaders contention that an appeal can be filed under that section before an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge because a Court presided over by one of them also constitutes a Court of Session. If this contention were to be accepted, there would be nothing to prevent-a person convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge from filing an appeal before the same Assistant Sessions Judge or any other Assistant Sessions Judge who exercises jurisdiction in the Court of Session in that Sessions division. That would be altogether absurd.

(29) It seems to me to be abundantly clear that an appeal which is to be filed before the Court of Session under section 408, or any other provision like sections 406 or 406A, must be filed in the Court presided over by the Sessions Judge. I may refer, in this connection, to the words an appeal to the Court of Session or Sessions Judge in Sub-section (1) of section 409 which strongly support this view by showing that Sessions Judge is synonymous with Court of Session for the purpose of filing appeal. The Sessions Judge may hear the appeal himself or, under Sub-section (2) of Section 409, he may transfer it for disposal to an Additional or an Assistant Sessions Judge. In the absence of an order of transfer by him, and in the absence of any direction of the State Government, an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction even to hear an appeal. It is quite certain that neither of them has jurisdiction to receive an appeal. As I have already mentioned, it is only an appeal of a person convicted by a Magistrate of second or third class which can in view of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 409, be transferred for disposal to an Assistant Sessions Judge.

(30) There is nothing to show that there was any direction by the Slate Government or the Sessions Judge under Sub-section (2) of section 409, authorising the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to hear the appeal. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed before him, much less to receive and admit it.