SITAL SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I respectfully submit that the class of cases of illegal pardon and illegal withdrawal was in express terms distinguished (reads passage on p. 724). In fact the true question in such class of cases was stated, at page 724, to be "whether several persons having been placed on their trial together, the proceedings as against one of them, have come to an end so as to remove the impediment to his being examined as a witness." This is just my present contention and I rely on the passage which clearly supports my contention. This ruling was cited by me on the application of the Rule, and Richardson J., who was a member of the Court which decided it, also was a member of the Bench which granted this Rule, showing that in his opinion it did not cover the present matter. If the ruling applies here, it is in conflict with Paban Sing v. Emperor (1906) 10 C.W.N. 847 and Banu Singh v. Emperor (1906) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 1353, and the point should be referred to a Full Bench. Though the last two cases related to illegal pardon, there is no distinction in principle between them and the present case. As to the next ground of the rule, the evidence of cocaine and gambling cases is excluded by Section 54 of the Evidence Act. It is also excluded by Section 10 as relating to acts done before the existence of the conspiracy. Further Sital, having been acquitted on appeal, must be deemed innocent, as laid down in Rex v. Plummer [1902] 2 K.B. 339 which has been followed in several Calcutta decisions, and hence such evidence was inadmissible against him on this ground also. The prosecution case or suggestion that the cocaine and gambling business became too risky, and led to the hatching of the present conspiracy, does not render evidence of the former matters admissible. The connection is too remote in time and there is a great difference in the nature of the two transactions. The suggestion was a mere pretext to let in evidence of bad character, and to raise an atmosphere of prejudice against the petitioners. The cocaine dens were not situated in the centres of the conspiracy, as found by the Magistrate, except one-- viz, Bhujan Pandit s house, where, however, the scheme was only proposed. The conspiracy was matured in the house of Moti s mistress and carried on in other places. Besides the members of the conspiracy were not all connected with the dens. Except as being calculated to create prejudice, this evidence has no value. The third ground of the rule does not affect Sital.

(2.) [Crim. Rev. No. 605.] Mr. Camell (with him Babu Panna Lal Chatterjee), for Ujagir. I adopt the arguments on the first two grounds of the Rule. Ujagir s case is quite different to that of the rest: he was hot implicated in any overt act. The evidence of his association with the members of the conspiracy is not conclusive.

(3.) [crim. Rev. No. 606.] Babu Satindra Nath Mukerjee and Maulvi A.K. Fazlul Huq, for Ganesh Kalwar and four others.