It is clear that first' requirements under section 9(6) of the code is that the Sessions Judges must be of the opinion that it would tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its settings at any other place in the Sessions Division s than the place notified by the High Court. There was nothing on record to form such opinion by the judge to hold the trial in camera.

The word used in Section 9(6) of the Code that the Sessions Court may hold its suttings at any other place in the Session Division, if it is of opinion that it will tend to general convenience of the parties and witnesses, they only with the consent of the prosecution and /or the accused person s it can have trial at any other place.

Thus, even if the judge was of such opinion to hold the trial in camera, then also, without the consent of the prosecution or the accused persons, he could not have done it. The trial Judge is also bound to act in accordance with law as provided u/s 9(6) of the Code.

It is clear from the bare reading of section 327 of the Code that the cases should be tried in an open court but in an exceptional case if the Presiding Officer of the Court thinks it fit then only he may decide to hold the Trial in camera, otherwise not. As Stated earlier,in the instant case, there was nothing on which the trial judge could have been thought it fit to hold the trial in camera.