It is clear that the first requirement under Section 9(6) of the Code is that the Session Judge must be of the opinion that it would tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any place within the Session Division other than the place notified by the High Court.

There was nothing on the record to form such an opinion by the Judge to hold the trial in camera. The wording in Section 9(6) of the Code states that the Session Judge may hold its sittings at any other place in the Session Division if it is of the opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses.

However, this can only occur with the consent of the prosecution and/or the accused persons. Thus, even if the judge was of such an opinion to hold the trial in camera, without the consent of the prosecution or the accused persons, he could not have done so. The trial judge is also bound to act in accordance with the law as provided under Section 9(6) of the Code.

It is clear from a plain reading of Section 327 of the Code that cases should be tried in an open court, but in exceptional cases, if the Presiding Officer of the court deems it fit, then only may he 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 even considered it fit to hold the trial in camera.