JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmad, C.J. and Dar, J. - This is an appeal by Sipattar Singh alias Ghilandra Singh against his conviction by the temporary Sessions Judge of Moradabad u/s 302 I.P.C. and the sentence of death passed on him. The charge against the Appellant was that on the 13th of June, 1941, at about noon in village Gadi Khera at the house of Sundar Singh he committed the murder of Mst. Tirbeni by strangulating her with a lathi which he put and pressed on her neck and fractured her thyroid cartilage. 2. As we are satisfied that the trial was vitiated by an irregularity committed by the learned Judge we have decided to send the case back with the direction that the Appellant be retried according to law. It is therefore, unnecessary to state the facts of the case. The trial before the learned Judge commenced with the aid of three assessors, viz. (1) M. Mohammad Noor, (2) Th. Tej Singh and (3) L. Bhagwat Sahai. The first witness examined for the prosecution was one Sundar Singh and while Sundar Singh was being cross-examined, the third assessor L. Bhagwat Sahai informed the Judge that he had personal knowledge about one of the facts which was deposed to by Sundar Singh. The learned Judge then recorded the following note: At this stage Lala Bhagwat Sahai assessor said that on June IS or thereabouts one morning at 8 A.M. while he was standing at the door of his kothi this witness passing on the way asked him where the kothi of B. Gayendra Kumar was and he pointed out to him that the kothi adjoining his was the one which the vakil occupied Babu Gayendra Kumar is his tenant of the kothi. In view of this personal knowledge possessed by Lala Bhagwat Sahai, I discharge him from the array of the assessors and shall record his evidence, if necessary. 3. After the discharge of L. Bhagwat Sahai the trial proceeded with the aid of remaining two assessors one of whom expressed the opinion that the charge Was brought home to the Appellant, whereas the other found the Appellant not guilty. The learned Judge accepted the opinion of the assessor who found the Appellant guilty and accordingly convicted the Appellant. 4. After the discharge of L. Bhagwat Sahai the trial proceeded with the aid of remaining two assessors one of whom expressed the opinion that the charge Was brought home to the Appellant, whereas the other found the Appellant not guilty. The learned Judge accepted the opinion of the assessor who found the Appellant guilty and accordingly convicted the Appellant. 4. Now in view of the provisions of Section 284 Code of Criminal Procedure the minimum number of assessors with whose aid the trial is to be held is three. The trial in this case, therefore, started with the minimum number of assessors, but one of them was, as already stated, discharged by the learned Judge while the evidence of the very first witness for the prosecution was being recorded. As the number of assessors was reduced to two after the discharge of Lala Bhagwat Sahai, it was not competent to the learned Judge to proceed with the trial without having a third assessor. In arriving at this conclusion we have not overlooked the provisions of Section 285(1) of the Code which runs as follows: If in the course of a trial with the aid of assessors, at any time before the finding, any assessor is, from any sufficient cause, prevented from attending throughout the trial, or absents himself and it is not practicable to enforce his attendance, the trial shall proceed with the aid of, the other assessor or assessors. 5. This sub-section in our opinion has no application to the present case. It constitutes an exception to Section 284 and is confined in its operation only to cases where the assessor himself is prevented from attending the trial by reason of infirmity or some other physical disability. The sub-section, in our view, does not contemplate a case where the trial Judge himself discharges one of the assessors on the ground that the assessor concerned is disqualified from acting as an assessor because of the knowledge that he has concerning the facts in issue in the case. In view of the provisions of Section 284 it is imperative that a sessions trial must start with three assessors who are qualified to act as such. As in the case before us L. Bhagwat Sahai had personal knowledge about a matter relevant to the case he was not qualified to act an assessor. In view of the provisions of Section 284 it is imperative that a sessions trial must start with three assessors who are qualified to act as such. As in the case before us L. Bhagwat Sahai had personal knowledge about a matter relevant to the case he was not qualified to act an assessor. The result was that in substance, if not in fact, the trial commenced with the aid of only two assessors who were qualified to act as such. The trial was therefore vitiated. The view taken by us is supported by the decision in Queen-Empress v. Babu Lal. (1898) 21 All. 106. 6. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of and sentence passed on the Appellant and send the case back to the Sessions Judge of Moradabad with the direction to keep the case on his own file and try the Appellant according to law. The case will not be tried by Mr. Zamirul Islam Khan. The decision of the case must be expedited by the learned Sessions Judge,