Order.- This is a revision case by the Madras State to revise the orders of the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, dated 16th January, 1951 and 15th February, 1951. The facts are briefly these. The accused in R.C.No.4 of 1950 filed a petition before the District Magistrate of Tirunelveli for transferring the four approvers in that case from the sub-jail, Tuticorin, to either the sub-jail, Kokkarakulam, or to any central jail. R.C.No.4 of 1950 is a big conspiracy case involving some 97 accused. The main evidence in the case is going to be that of these four approvers. The accused apprehended that if these approvers were lodged in the sub-jail. Tuticorin, which is located in the same building as the police station of Tuticorin and is guarded by a police guard, the approvers might be influenced by the police guard or other police officers to give a story unfavourable to the accused, and so prayed that the approvers might be removed to the central jail beyond all reach of police influence, and in sole control of the jail authorities. The learned District Magistrate found, in his order dated 16th January, 1951, that there were absolutely no materials from which it could be inferred that the police were exercising any unwholesome influence on the approvers lodged in Tuticorin sub-jail, and also found that the approvers were only in judicial custody in Tuticorin sub-jail. But he thought that it was possible to argue that the police, if inclined that way,, could get at the approvers and advise and persuade them to give evidence against the accused. So he considered it advisable to have these approvers transferred from the Tuticorin sub-jail and detained in the Kokkarakulam sub-jail or in any central jail according to the convenience of the jail authorities, making provision also for communists not to get at and persuade the approvers to give evidence the other way, and ordered accordingly. The Public Prosecutor, Tirunelveli, put in Cr.R.P.No.1 of 1951 in R.C.No.4 of 1950 for revising, vacating and cancelling the order dated 16th January, 1951. The learned District Magistrate, by his order dated 15th February, 1951, found that he had no jurisdiction to revise, vacate or cancel his own order dated 16th January, 1951, and found further that, even if he had jurisdiction, he would not have revised, vacated and cancelled the prior order, as sufficient reason was not shown for doing so. The learned District Magistrate, by his order dated 15th February, 1951, found that he had no jurisdiction to revise, vacate or cancel his own order dated 16th January, 1951, and found further that, even if he had jurisdiction, he would not have revised, vacated and cancelled the prior order, as sufficient reason was not shown for doing so. Hence this revision case here. I have perused the relevant records and hear d the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. The position in law is clear. A sub-jail is in the custody of a Sub-Magistrate, a judicial officer, who is the sub-jail officer under the rules, and any person kept in a sub-jail is in judicial custody, and not in police custody. No doubt, there will be a police guard for the sub-jail. But the police are not in control of the sub-jail. The Sub-Magistrate is in control. The mere fact that police constables are guarding the sub-jail means little. So also that it is located in the same compound as the police station. Often, judicial officers and Courts have police constables for guard duty. Even in the High Court sessions, constables come and guard the accused persons. Daily, constables are in attendance in the High Court compound to preserve order, regulate traffic, etc. Even in the most democratic conditions this is inevitable. No country can do without the police or the army for at least a hundred years to come.. Nor do I see any harm in the police guards, escorts, etc. If the police guard, or other police officers talk to the approvers about the case, or tutor them, that is a different matter. That is not the case here. Nor have the approvers complained of ill-treatment, threat, questioning, coaching or tutoring. Any complaint of misbehaviour by the police in this matter may be brought to the notice of the Sub-Magistrate (sub-jail officer) who will doubtless take prompt action. To say that he will be afraid of the police guard is incredible, as, even in the wildest democracy, the dog wags the tail, and not the tail the dog. But, if it is proved that the Sub-Magistrate is really afraid to do his duty, from pusilanimous fear of the police, that may be alleged and proved before the proper authorities. But, if it is proved that the Sub-Magistrate is really afraid to do his duty, from pusilanimous fear of the police, that may be alleged and proved before the proper authorities. I see no reason to transfer the approvers to a central jail on any such unproved and theoretical apprehension, as it will undoubtedly entail, unnecessary waste of public time, money and energy. Doubtless, the District Magistrate and other authorities will have the power to order the transfer of approvers to a central jail, even at the cost of public time, money and energy if it is really proved that the approvers are being tutored or influenced by the police officers acting as guard in that sub-jail, and if it is impossible to prevent this kind of thing even by transferring the approvers to another sub-jail. One should not confess defeat before trying the matter out, and I am not hopeless about sub-jail officers and Sub-Magistrates ensuring that approvers are free from such police persuasion or coercion in any sub-jails under their control. As the learned District Magistrate has not stated that there was any such attempt by the police guard or other police officers to influence the approvers, and, indeed, says, that there were absolutely no materials from which it could be inferred that the police were exercising any unwholesome influence on the approvers, it is clear to me that his order directing the transfer of the approvers to a central jail or to Kokkarakulam sub-jail, which is, I understand from the learned Public Prosecutor, congested and has no cells to spare for lodging these people, is incorrect, especially as it is hedged about with somewhat unworkable directions, like keeping the accused free from communists’ influence also. The learned District Magistrate seems to have been obsessed by theoretical fears of the police, on the one side, against the accused, and of the communists, on the other side, for the accused, and, so, has passed a somewhat unworkable order in an attempt to steer clear of the scylla and the charybdis. A far easier course is indicated in this case to solve all difficulties. The Tuticorin sub-jail is too distant and too inconvenient for lodging these approvers, and the enquiry commences at Tinnevelly on 30th April, 1951. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that Srivaikuntam sub-jail is only 14 miles from Tirunelveli. A far easier course is indicated in this case to solve all difficulties. The Tuticorin sub-jail is too distant and too inconvenient for lodging these approvers, and the enquiry commences at Tinnevelly on 30th April, 1951. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that Srivaikuntam sub-jail is only 14 miles from Tirunelveli. It is thus much nearer, and has got ample accommodation for these approvers, and these approvers can be kept there under the sole charge and custody of a non-police warder and guard, the sub-jail officer of that jail getting, if necessary, non-police warder and guard for that purpose. So these four approvers are directed to be kept in Srivaikuntam sub-jail, in two separate cells, under the sole control and custody of a non-police warder and guard, and the sub-jail officer, Srivaikuntam, sub-jail, is directed to pay his personal attention to this matter and see that no police officers ever get at the approvers or try to persuade them to depose against the accused. I understand from the learned Public Prosecutor that the enquiry by a Special First Class Magistrate is to begin on the 30th April positively at Tirunelveli. So, Srivaikuntam sub-jail will suit excellently and all the four approvers will be transferred to it at once, and kept there as directed above. The learned counsel for the accused also agree to this. Of course for the purpose of escorting the approvers to Court, reserve constables or other constables may be used, as is usual even in the High Court, but except for this, and for the necessary guard duty in Court, the police should have nothing to do with these approvers. I may add finally, that it is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule regarding such matters applicable to all cases. Each case has to be dealt with on its own merits, in order to see that justice is not only done but appears to one and all to be done. District Magistrates and others will have undoubted power to order approvers to be confined in a central jail if that course is inevitable and is necessitated by the police getting at the approvers in other jails, and the impossibility of preventing that. But till such a state of things arises there is no need to waste public time, money and energy unnecessarily on any such general detention of approvers in central jails alone. But till such a state of things arises there is no need to waste public time, money and energy unnecessarily on any such general detention of approvers in central jails alone. V.S. ----- Ordered accordingly.