Judgment :- 1. One Kandankali Bhaskaran was the 2nd accused in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1123 on the file of the Sessions Court, Alleppey. He along with others was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under S. 301 T.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under S. 324 T.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for another six months. Both these sentences were directed to run concurrently. He preferred an appeal before the Travancore High Court, against the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1123. The State preferred an appeal No. 125 of 1123 against him questioning the order of acquittal under other Sections for which he was tried. The legality of the sentence passed under S. 301 T.P.C., had also been questioned. This Court in Calendar Revision had issued notice because of the illegal sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Notice of the appeal and Calendar Revision was served on him fixing the date of hearing on 2.3.1124. By this time he had served the term of imprisonment and was released from the jail. On 2.3.1124 he engaged an advocate Sri. K.N. Aiyappan Pillai to appear for him in the appeal filed by the State and the Calendar Revision Proceedings. His appeal and the appeals filed by his co-accused came up for hearing on 18.3.1124 along with the appeals filed by the State against all those persons. This 2nd accused was not present that day. His advocate filed a memo that he too had written to the party regarding the posting and that for some reasons not known the party had not appeared. A non-bailable warrant was issued for the arrest and production of this Bhaskaran. That could not be executed as his whereabouts were not known. The appeals were not disposed of by the Travancore High Court till the integrated High Court of the Travancore and Cochin States was established with its seat at Ernakulam. All the appeals came up for hearing on 28.3.1950. The 4th accused's advocate alone was present. The appeals were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench, confirming the conviction under S. 301 T.P.C. As the sentence for the offence under S. 301 T.P.C. was imprisonment for life with or without forfeiture of property, the accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The 4th accused's advocate alone was present. The appeals were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench, confirming the conviction under S. 301 T.P.C. As the sentence for the offence under S. 301 T.P.C. was imprisonment for life with or without forfeiture of property, the accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Directions were also given in the judgment to take steps for the arrest of the convicted persons if they were not in custody in order that the punishment awarded by the Court might be undergone by them. This Bhaskaran was subsequently arrested and sent to jail where he is undergoing the sentence passed against him. 2. Now one Kunjamma Paroo who is said to be Bhaskaran's mother-in-law has filed this petition for issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus so that he may be brought before this Court and released. It is stated in her affidavit that after the establishment of the Travancore-Cochin High Court no notice of the posting of the appeals was given to Bhaskaran, that without any notice of the time and place of hearing the appeals were disposed of enhancing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, that Bhaskaran was condemned without being heard, that the judgment was in violation of Ss. 349 and 350 Crl.P.C. (Tr.) and hence void in law, that the High Court had no jurisdiction to order the arrest, that the arrest was void ab initio and illegal and that Bhaskaran was to be released forthwith. 3. Notice of this petition was given to the State. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It was stated that this Court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ prayed for so as to enforce it in regard to a person who is being detained in custody by virtue of a proper and valid judgment of this Court that Sri. K.N. Aiyappan Pillai who had been engaged by Bhaskaran had not given up his engagement, that as was the practice the name of Sri Aiyappan Pillai was in the Cause List, that Bhaskaran, if he had any complaint, could have moved in this matter in the proper way before the proper authority, that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not in accordance with law and that the petition has to be dismissed with costs. 4. 4. This motion on behalf of Bhaskaran-appellant in Crl. Appeal 86 of 1123 and respondent in Crl. Appeal 125 of 1123 appears to me to be an ill-conceived one. In the affidavit in support of the petition it is admitted that the term of imprisonment was raised to one for life by a judgment passed by a Bench of this Court. There is ordinarily a presumption in favour of the judgment under which an accused was convicted and of the regularity of the proceedings. On Habeas Corpus the Court may only look at the record to see whether a judgment did exist, and if it finds that there is a judgment, the Court on such proceedings has no power to determine whether it is right or wrong, since the judgment is conclusively presumed to be right until brought up for revision in the regular way of appeal. (Vide 39 Cor. Jur. 650 - quoted at page 212 of Prem's Law of Habeas Corpus & C.P. -1950 edition). The present attempt appears to be to attack a judgment of this Court by collateral means and for that purpose a petition of this nature will not lie. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from unlawful or unjustifiable detention whether in prison or in private custody. The illegal detention of a subject, that is a detention or imprisonment which is incapable of legal justification, is the basis of jurisdiction in Habeas Corpus. There is no such justification in the present instance and this petition is, as stated by the learned Government Pleader, an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The petitioner's learned Advocate attempted to justify his position by arguing that the judgment passed in appeal by this Court is void ab-initio as the imperative provisions enjoined in Ss. 349 and 350 of the Crl.P.C. were not observed. The S. 349 lays down that when a convicted person files an appeal, the appellate court shall cause notice to be given to the appellant or his Pleader of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard. Under S. 350, the Court is to hear the appellant or his pleader if he appears before passing Judgment. The S. 349 lays down that when a convicted person files an appeal, the appellate court shall cause notice to be given to the appellant or his Pleader of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard. Under S. 350, the Court is to hear the appellant or his pleader if he appears before passing Judgment. It is S. 345 Crl.P.C. that allows the State to prefer appeals against acquittals, but the procedure to be followed can be taken to be that prescribed in S. 349 and 350 Crl.P.C. In this case notice of the State Appeal as well as the Calendar Revision was served personally on Bhaskaran. He had also engaged an Advocate who had not given up his brief even though the party did not appear. The posting of the appeal was published in the Notice Board as is the practice. The advocate's name appeared there as well as in the Cause List. That is sufficient notice though the advocate had not chosen to appear. There is therefore no justification for this complaint. Reference was made In Re Soma Naidu (A.I.R. 1924 Madras 640) where it had been held that a reasonable opportunity for the accused to be heard is an essential condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under S. 439 Indian Crl.P.C. (corresponding to the Travancore S. 362 relating to the High Court's Powers of revision), when the court is considering the question of enhancing the punishment inflicted on him, and that where the conditions laid down by law as precedent and requisite to the hearing of a case are not observed, the Court acts without jurisdiction, that its order is void ab-initio and that the case can be reheard. Even if such contingencies as mentioned therein exist, then the proper course is for the convicted person to move for a rehearing of the appeal, and not to cause a petition of this nature to be filed to attack the judgment. No decided cases had gone to the extent of holding that to circumvent a judgment of court, the party is at liberty to move for release by filing an Habeas Corpus petition and so it is not necessary for me to consider in detail Galos Hirad v. The King (AIR 1944 PC 93), Ramesh Pada Mandal v. Kadambini Dassi (AIR 1927 Cal. 702) and Muahmmed Sadiq v. The Crown (AIR 1925 Lah. 702) and Muahmmed Sadiq v. The Crown (AIR 1925 Lah. 355) cited on behalf of the petitioner. There is therefore no substantial ground in this petition. 6. Before concluding this order, I have to observe that an affidavit from the prisoner should have been filed in support of the application. Generally the person who is alleged to be illegally imprisoned or detained in confinement without any legal justification is entitled to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, but it is not necessary that the application is to proceed from him. The detenu or any other person on his behalf could institute such proceedings. A mere stranger or volunteer who has no authority to represent him is not allowed to apply for Habeas Corpus. The main difficulty in the case of a stranger is that he is not in a position to make a detailed affidavit with regard to the circumstances of the alleged detention of the detenu (See Exparte Child (1845) 15 C.B. 238). But in any case where access is denied to a person alleged to be unjustifiably detained, so that there are no instructions from the prisoner, an application for the writ of Habeas Corpus may be made by any relation or friend on an affidavit setting forth the reasons for its being. At any rate the Court will not grant a Habeas Corpus to bring up a prisoner for the purpose of being discharged on the ground that he is illegally in custody unless there be an affidavit from himself, or it be shown that he is so coerced as to be unable to make one. (Re Parker Canadian: Prisoner's Case (1839) 151 E.R. 15, and Ex P.O. Brien (1923) 39 Times Law Reports 413). In the affidavit filed in this case by the prisoner's mother-in-law, there is absolutely no indication why an affidavit from the prisoner could not be filed. The affidavit itself contains several inaccurate statements. In Ex. P.O. Briens' Case mentioned above an affidavit from the sister was not accepted by the Court. The absence of an affidavit from Bhaskaran is a material defect in the case. Even apart from that there is no ground made out for issuing the writ applied for. The petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.