PONTHIRAM JOAB Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears from the order-sheet in this case that on the 15 November 1922, warrants were issued against the absent witnesses for the defence. The number, we are told, was 11. But that is not material. On the 27 November, 1922, only one of these appears to have been present. He was examined. On that day the order-sheet shows that the mukhtear refused to argue, and subsequently nothing was done except that the order complained of was made. From the order made on the 27 November, 1922. I cannot help thinking that the grounds upon which we are asked to interfere exist. It is true that in his explanation the District Magistrate says that the accused and his muktear did not apply for further processes against the witnesses; that is consistent with the order-sheet and consistent with the production of the witnesses still being possible under the existing processes. The remainder of the explanation of the District Magistrate is in such guarded terms that I am not willing to pay much attention to it. In the circumstances the accused ought to have a further opportunity of examining his witnesses. The judgment and order complained of will be set aside, and the same sent back to the trial Magistrate so that he will resume the trial from the point reached on the 27 November, 1922, giving such opportunity as may be necessary and Issuing whatever processes as may be required to enable the accused to produce and examine his witnesses, and the Magistrate will then dispose of the case in due course.

(2.) The Rule is made absolute.

(3.) The petitioner will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.