Judgment Sahai, J. 1. This application for revision arises in rather peculiar circumstances. 2. The trial of Sessions Case No. 70 of 1956 commenced before Mr. T.P. Mukherji, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge of Patna, on the 10th July, 1956. Five accused persons were on their trial in that case. Out of them, two stood charged for an offence under Sec.302 of the Penal Code, and three, including petitioner Jawahir Shao and one Bilas Nonia, stood charged under Sec.302 read with "Sec.109 of the Penal Code. The trial proceeded and there were twenty actual dates of hearing. On one date, the Judge held local inspection also. The trial concluded on the 5th September, and 19th September was fixed as the ciate for judgment. As the judgment was not ready on that date, the case was adjourned to the 28th September for judgment. On that date also, the case was adjourned to the 29th September. 1956, when, again, it was adjourned to the 6th November, 1956. On the 6th November, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order that he considered it necessary to add a further charge for an offence under Sec. 411 of the Penal Code against Bilas Nonia. He, accordingly added such a charge, and adjourned the case to the next day. On the 7th November, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order to the effect that, as the charge under Sec. 411 of the Penal Code was "triable by a jury, the trial shall commence de novo". He fixed the 3rd December as the date for commencement of the trial. On the 3rd December, the petitioner filed an application, praying that the trial of Bilas Nonia be separated and judgment be delivered with regard to the charges against the other four accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this application and directed that all the five accused persons would be tried together at the fresh trial. The petitioner has filed this application against the learned Additional Sessions Judges orders. His prayer is that the accused persons other than Bilas Nonia should not be tried Pt a fresh trial with Bilas Nonia, and that the Additional Sessions Judge may be directed to deliver judgment in resppct of those four accused persons, including him. 3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. His prayer is that the accused persons other than Bilas Nonia should not be tried Pt a fresh trial with Bilas Nonia, and that the Additional Sessions Judge may be directed to deliver judgment in resppct of those four accused persons, including him. 3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Saileshwar De has argued that the petitioner and his co-accused other than Bilas Nonia will be unduly harassed if they are tried again along with Bilas Nonia. The Additional Government Pleader, who has appeared on behalf of the State, has conceded that that would be so, and has submitted that the ends of justice would be served if the trial of Bilas Nonia is separated and the Additional Sessions Judge delivers Judgment in so far as the cases against the other four accused persons, including the petitioner, are concerned. 4. Sec.309 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Judge shall give a judgment after conclusion of the defence case and the prosecutors reply, if any. It is only on the basis of some valid reason that the Judge can, instead of delivering judgment as required by this provision, direct a fresh trial. Sec.227 of the Code empowers a Court to alter or add to any charga at any time before judgment is pronounced. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could add the charge for an offence under Sec. 411 against Bilas Nonia at the stage at which he did so. The offence under Sec. 411 is triable by jury. Bub-section (3) of Sec.269 of the Code lays down that where an accused is charged at the same trial with several offences, of which some are triable by jury and some by the Judge himself, he shall be tried by jury for such of those offences as are triable by jury and by the Judge himself for such of them as are not triable by jury. In view of this provision, there is a valid reason for the Additional Sessions Judge to direct the fresh trial of Bilas Nonia. There is, however, no valid reason for him to direct the trial of. the other four accused persons including the petitioner, along with Bilas Nonia and not to deliver judgment in regard to their cases. In view of this provision, there is a valid reason for the Additional Sessions Judge to direct the fresh trial of Bilas Nonia. There is, however, no valid reason for him to direct the trial of. the other four accused persons including the petitioner, along with Bilas Nonia and not to deliver judgment in regard to their cases. It can also not be denied that the learned Additional Sessions Judges order would cause unnecessary harassment to the accused other than Bilas Nonia, in view of the fact that they have already been tried a: a trial which appears to have been an unduly protracted one. In these circumstances, I agree with the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader. 5. In the result, I allow the application, and modify the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated the 7th November, 1956, and the 3rd December, 1956. He is directed to separate the trial of Bilas Nonia from that of the other accused persons and to deliver judgment without any unnecessary delay in regard to the cases of those other four accused persons.