JAWAHIR SHAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for revision arises in rather peculiar circumstances.

(2.) The trial of Sessions Case No. 70 of 1956 commenced before Mr. T.P. Mukherji, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge of Patna, on the 10th July, 1956. Five accused persons were on their trial in that case. Out of them, two stood charged for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and three, including petitioner Jawahir Shao and one Bilas Nonia, stood charged under Section 302 read with "Section 109 of the Penal Code. The trial proceeded and there were twenty actual dates of hearing. On one date, the Judge held local inspection also. The trial concluded on the 5th September, and 19th September was fixed as the ciate for judgment. As the judgment was not ready on that date, the case was adjourned to the 28th September for judgment. On that date also, the case was adjourned to the 29th September. 1956, when, again, it was adjourned to the 6th November, 1956. On the 6th November, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order that he considered it necessary to add a further charge for an offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code against Bilas Nonia. He, accordingly added such a charge, and adjourned the case to the next day. On the 7th November, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order to the effect that, as the charge under Section 411 of the Penal Code was "triable by a jury, the trial shall commence de novo". He fixed the 3rd December as the date for commencement of the trial. On the 3rd December, the petitioner filed an application, praying that the trial of Bilas Nonia be separated and judgment be delivered with regard to the charges against the other four accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this application and directed that all the five accused persons would be tried together at the fresh trial. The petitioner has filed this application against the learned Additional Sessions Judge's orders. His prayer is that the accused persons other than Bilas Nonia should not be tried Pt a fresh trial with Bilas Nonia, and that the Additional Sessions Judge may be directed to deliver judgment in resppct of those four accused persons, including him.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Saileshwar De has argued that the petitioner and his co-accused other than Bilas Nonia will be unduly harassed if they are tried again along with Bilas Nonia. The Additional Government Pleader, who has appeared on behalf of the State, has conceded that that would be so, and has submitted that the ends of justice would be served if the trial of Bilas Nonia is separated and the Additional Sessions Judge delivers Judgment in so far as the cases against the other four accused persons, including the petitioner, are concerned.