SULTAN AHMAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this rule is one Sultan Ahmed who was an approver at the trial of a case under Section 395, I.P.C., in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Chittagong. The case ended in conviction and the co-accused of the petitioner were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. On 18 July 1934 the Public Prosecutor prayed that the approver might be released immediately. Thereupon the learned Sessions Judge recorded the following order on 17 August 1934: Read the petition of the Public Prosecutor praying that the approver may be released immediately. This cannot be allowed until the period fixed by the law of Limitation expires or until appeals (if any) to the Honourable Court are heard and determined, since the Honourable Court has e,very authority and power to order a re-trial of the case if that is found to be necessary, and in that event the approver's evidence would again be taken.

(2.) Against that order the petitioner has moved this Court. It is contended on his behalf that the further detention of the petitioner in jail is contrary to law. The learned Advocate for the Crown has contended that the order of the learned Judge quoted above is not contrary to the provisions of Section 337, Criminal P.C. Sub-section (3) of that section provides: Such person, "unless he is already on bail" shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.

(3.) It is contended that the word "trial" here includes the proceedings if any in the Court of appeal, on the ground that the appeal is merely the continuation of the trial. It is pointed out that in the old Code of 1898 the words of the corresponding Sub-section (3) were as follows: Such person, "if not on bail," shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial by the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be.