Ghose and Rampini, JJ.
1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge should not be set aside on the ground that he refused to hear the pleader who was appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner.
2. It appears that in this case proceedings were taken against the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why he should not give security for his good behaviour, and under the provisions of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code the proceedings were forwarded to the Sessions Judge, as the Magistrate Considered that it was necessary to detain the person in jail for a period exceed-one year When the case came before the Sessions Judge, the learned Judge refused to hear the pleader whom the accused appointed to appear on his behalf on the ground that the law did not require the pleader to be heard under the circumstances. We think that, under the provisions of Section 340 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 to bear the meaning which has been put upon it by the Bombay High Court in the case of Queen -Empress v. Mona Puna I.L.R. 16 Bom. 661. The Bombay High Court has there defined the word accused' as meaning 'a person over whom the Magistrate or other Court is exercising jurisdiction.' If that be the meaning of the word 'accused,' as we think it is, the learned Sessions 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 person's pleader an opportunity of being heard. After hearing the pleader, he will pass such order in the case as he may think it right and proper to do.