Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.
1. We are of opinion that this appeal should be re-heard on the three grounds on which the Rule was issued. The law under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not appear to be very precise, but it does lay down that the appellant or his pleader shall have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal. Now, this must be taken to include the possible right of reply, if necessary, for it is obvious that if the Crown in its reply raises any points or displaces, in the opinion of the learned Judge, the points which were raised in the opening, the appellant or his pleader will have no reasonable opportunity of supporting their case, unless they are allowed to reply, and that this is so has been laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Promoda Bhusan Roy v. Emperor (1906) 111 C.W.N. xliii.
2. As regards the other two points, the finding of the learned Judge is vague as to the question whether Shashi and Afsar are or are not accomplices. A mere statement at the end of his judgment that some of the witnesses may be suspected of being accomplices is not sufficient, for, it being affirmed by the defence that two important witnesses were as a matter of fact accomplices, he was bound to find either that they were or were not accomplices, and to have weighed their evidence accordingly.
3. As regards the third point, the entry, exhibit Nor. 4, has been explained in a certain way by the Magistrate who tried the case, but, that explanation is disputed by the defence, and the learned Judge's judgment does not deal with the question. Therefore, it appears necessary for us to direct a rehearing of the appeal, and we accordingly do so.
4. We leave the question as to the propriety of admitting the petitioner to bail to the learned Sessions Judge.