JUDGMENT 1. An objection is taken by Mr. Hill for the Appellant that the proceedings in the Sessions Court are bad inasmuch as the Court was not properly constituted to hold the trial. On the 1st of February one of the assessors Babu Kamini Kumar Das was absent and the trial was resumed with the aid of the other assessor only. The absent assessor however attended later on in the same day and was allowed to take part in the subsequent proceedings. On the 3rd of February, the other assessor Munshi Abdul Cahar Chowdhury was absent and the trial was resumed with the aid of the other assessor, that is to say, the assessor who had been absent on the 1st of February in (sic) way (sic) of an assessor during the trial, and it declares that in the absence of any assessor the trial shall proceed with the aid of the other assessor or assessors. Sub-sec. 2 further declares that if all the assessors are prevented from attending, or absent themselves, the proceedings shall be stayed, and a new trial shall be held with the aid of fresh assessors. 2. When a trial is resumed by the Sessions Judge in the absence of one of the assessors, but still with the aid of the other assessor or assessors present, the absent assessor cases to occupy the position of an assessor aiding at the trial. The law does not provide for the return for that purpose and obviously it would be improper that he should afterwards be associated with the Sessions Judge in the trial when he has not heard some of the evidence which was taken on his absence. If this were possible, there would be nothing to prevent an assessor attending to hear one witness examined and after absenting himself to return when judgment is about to be delivered with the Court in the subsequent proceedings so as to have some influence in the judgment delivered. The proceedings held are therefore void. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the trial must be regularly held.