Authored By : S.C. Ghose, Robert Fulton Rampini

S.C. Ghose and Robert Fulton Rampini, JJ.

1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of theDistrict to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge should not be setaside on the ground that he refused to hear the pleader who was appointed toappear on behalf of the petitioner.

2. It appears that in this case proceedings were takenagainst the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why he should not givesecurity for his good behaviour, and under the provisions of Section 123 of theCriminal Procedure Code the proceedings were forwarded to the Sessions Judge,as the Magistrate Considered that it was necessary to detain the person in jailfor a period exceed-one year When the case came before the Sessions Judge, thelearned Judge refused to hear the pleader whom the accused appointed to appearon his behalf on the ground that the law did not require the pleader to beheard under the circumstances. We think that, under the provisions of Section340 of the Code he was bound to hear the pleader in this case. The petitioner,no doubt was not accused of any offence, but we understand the word accused tobear the meaning which has been put upon it by the Bombay High Court in thecase of Queen -Empress v. Mona Puna I.L.R. 16 Bom. 661. The Bombay High Courthas there defined the word accused" as meaning "a person over whomthe Magistrate or other Court is exercising jurisdiction." If that be themeaning of the word "accused," as we think it is, the learnedSessions Judge was bound to hear the pleader appointed by the petitioner.

3. We therefore set aside the order of the Sessions Judge,and direct that he give the accused persons pleader an opportunity of beingheard. After hearing the pleader, he will pass such order in the case as he maythink it right and proper to do.

.

Jhoja Singh vs.Queen-Empress (24.02.1896 - CALHC)