BENI MADHAB KUNDU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Rule obtained on behalf of Beni Madhab Kundu catling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the trial of the petitioner should not be stayed, or why such other order should not be passed in the matter as to this Court might seem fit.

(2.) In this case the petitioner was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge with a jury, and the verdict of: the jury was that he was guilty of: an offence of receiving stolen property obtained by means of dacoity, and he was sentenced to live years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was made to this Court based upon the ground that, after the jury had retired to consider their verdict, one of the jurymen had spoken to a person who was not a juryman, outside the retiring room, and that this person had asked him a question and he had replied to it. On the hearing of the appeal, this Court set aside the verdict on the ground of the irregularity to which I have just referred, and the judgment contained the following sentence:--"It will be "open to the Crown to proceed further with the case if it be so advised," and at the end of the judgment there was this sentence:--"We direct that "until a fresh trial, it any, the accused be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate".

(3.) The Crown did proceed further and, upon the second trial, the learned vakil on behalf of the petitioner took objection to the trial taking place and the trial of the case was adjourned in order that this matter might be decided by the High Court, whereupon a petition was presented to this Court, and, as I have already said, a Rule was granted.