1. The case was finished on 17th March 1932, and adjourned on that date to 22nd March 1932, for judgment. The judgment was signed and dated by the Magistrate on 22nd March 1932, but was not pronounced by him because some of the accused were absent. On 31st March 1932 the Magistrate who wrote the judgment handed it over to his successor, who pronounced the judgment on 4th April. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Reilly, J., in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Chookalingam Ambalam AIR 1929 Mad 201. The trial was over before the petitioners made their application, on 4th April, for a de novo trial. In whatever sense the word "trial" is used [In re Savrimuthu Pillai (1916) 40 Mad 103, Venkatachinnayya v. Emperor AIR 1920 Mad 337 and In the matter of Ramasamy Chetty (1904) 27 Mad. 510] it is clear that the trial of a criminal case is over as soon as the Magistrate has determined the issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The mere pronouncing of the judgment is not a part of the trial. Hence in my opinion the petitioners in this case were not entitled to a de novo trial and there was no irregularity, much less illegality, in the pronouncement of judgment by the successor of the Magistrate who wrote it: In re Sankara Pillai (1908) 18 MLJ 197.
2. On the merits little is to be said. It is contended that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has not given findings as to the common object of the petitioners, their bona fides and so forth. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the findings on these points are sufficiently well indicated in the judgment of the appellate Court. The sentences are not excessive. This petition is dismissed.