1. In the Court of Session of Gorakhpur, as established under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a Sessions Judge and there are, or have been, also two Additional Sessions Judges. There was a criminal appeal filed by Birju and others against their conviction by a Magistrate. So far as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure go, any one of the Judges of the Court of Session competent to exercise jurisdiction in the said Court could lawfully have heard that appeal. For the convenience of the administration, the Local Government had limited the powers of the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the trial of cases or appeals made over to him by the Sessions Judge. This particular appeal was made over to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, but circumstances subsequently occurred which made it more convenient for the Sessions Judge to hear the appeal himself. After proper notice to the parties he proceeded to do so. The question has been raised whether in so doing he acted outside his jurisdiction. We find nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to suggest that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur in respect of this appeal had been ousted in consequence of any arrangement which be might previously have made for the convenient disposal of the work of that Sessions Court. We do not think this is a case of transfer. The expression used in the Notification is 'made over to be tried,' and Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code simply gives jurisdiction to all Judges and Additional Sessions Judges of each Court of Session to which they may be appointed. If this appeal had been heard by a Judge who was not a Judge of the Sessions Division of Gorakhpur, Section 531 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have prohibited interference except upon the ground that a failure of justice had been occasioned by the hearing of the appeal in the wrong Sessions Division. We see no reason what ever for holding that there has been a failure of justice in this case. From one point of view, it might be said that the provisions of Section 531 aforesaid applied a fortiori to the present case. We are more inclined to hold that the absence of any corresponding provision in respect of cases tried within the same Sessions Division by a lawfully appointed Judge of that Sessions Division, whether he be the Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, shows that the Legislature did not think that any doubt as to the jurisdiction of such Judges could arise in view of the wording of Section 9 of the Code. We are satisfied that there is no cause for our interference. We dismiss this application.