BLANK, J. - (1.) THE matter for decision in this Rule lies within a narrow compass but it is necessary to mention the facts in some detail, The petitioner was appointed Director of Industries, Bengal in 1937 and was made the Agent of the Government of India in 1911 for procurement and supply of War materials. In October 1944 he was appointed Deputy Director General (Pro. duotion) and Controller of Supplies, Bengal Circle. On 26th October 1945 the petitioner's residence was searched, it is said, at the instance of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs. On 14th August 1947 the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 22nd November 1947 an officer of the Special Police Establishment filed 7 petitions of complaint in the Court of the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, against the petitioner and others charging them with having committed offences under S3. 120B, 161,16S, etc., Penal Code.
(2.) CASE No. 1 was against the petitioner only, the charge being for conspiracy with one Sripati Mukherjee and others under Section 120B, read with s. 166, Penal Code. There were also specifics charge of overt acts alleged to come within Section 165, Penal Code with referenoe to gifts and the like said to have been taken for himself and other offioera and gifts of money said to have been procured by the petitioner from Sripati Mukherjee and for named subordinates of the petitioner. These sums of money are the subject -matter of four separate oases, viz., oases Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1947, against the respective accused.
(3.) CASE No. 2, was against the petitioner and two others under Section 120B, read with Section 161, Penal Code, the charge alleged being for obtaining and accepting money from Sripati Mukherjee at the rate of approximately 40 p. o. of the profits made from contract for jute and cotton tents. The remaining case no. 3 was against the petitioner and one other. The petitioner has been discharged from this case by the First Special Tribunal, Oases nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 need not be referred to further except to say that in case no. 7, it is said, proceedings have been qua. shed by this Court. The general allegations against the petitioner appear sufficiently foe the present purpose from the foregoing. The cases were opened for three days, viz., 6th to 8fch January 1948, and evidence was led on 9th February 1948 starting in case No. 2 with the evidence of Sripati Mukherjee. It should be said that the special tribunal has a number of cases in hand at one time and it appears to be the practice of the tribunal to fix a suitable number of dates consecutively for a particular case and then to adjourn for a period of some weeks, in the meantime taking up other cases. Sripati Mukherjee was examined in chief for five days, that is, up till 14th Fe -bruary and the case was adjourned until 5th March. Between 14th February and 6th Maroh this Court was moved for a rule which was disposed of without delaying the proceedings before the tribunal; the subject -matter of the rule and its result is not now material. Sripati Mukherjee was examined accordingly from 6th March and his evidence in Case No. 2 was concluded after 11 days and in case No. 1 after is days, other witnesses having been examined and charges having been framed in all the cases on 26th May 1948. The petitioner's learned Counsel took up the cross -examination of Sripati Mukherjee in case No. 2 on 9th July continuing until 14th July and again from 18th August to 95th August. On 25th August a medical certificate was filed on behalf of the accused R E. be y, one of the accused in case No. 2 to the effect that he was incapable of standing his trial. Cases were accordingly adjourned and on 28th August the tribunal ordered that as Case No. 2 could not be proceeded with, Case no. i was fixed for cross -examination from 8th to 11th September 1948. On 30th August the petitioner moved this Court for a rule against the said order praying that cross -examination of Sripati Mukherjee in case no. 1 be not taken up until his cross examination and reexamination in case No. 2 were finished, submitting that the order of 28th August would seriously prejudice the petitioner. The rule was made absolute on 17th September 1948. The proceedings in Oases Nos. l and 2 having been stayed oases Nos. 4 to 6 were fixed for cross -examination from 8th to 11th September. On 8th September the Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the witness Sripati Mukherjee was confined to bed and unable to attend with the result that the oases were adjourned after certain other witnesses had been cross -examined. After a further investiga -tion of the physical and mental condition of the accused B. K. be y, the tribunal ordered that further proceedings against him be postponed and that case No. 2 be proceeded with without him; case No. a was fixed for hearing from 19th November 1948, On 19th November the Public Prosecutor asked for an adjournment on the ground that Sripati Mukherjee was too ill to attend Court for cross examination. He put in a medical certificate from Dr. A, E. be y Choudhury, Professor of Medicine, B. G. Ear Medical College, Caloutta. The case was adjourned to 18th December. On 17 to December a letter from Sripati Mukherjee with two medical certificates, one from the practitioner already referred to and another from a cardiologist on the staff of B. G. Ear Medical College and Hospital was put in. The witness stated that his health being completely shattered he is unable to give any further evidence. One of the certificates was to the effect that the witness required 'a course of prolonged rest, treatment and change of climate for three months from date' and the other stated that the witness needed 'rest, be to physical and mental, for a prolonged period which may be six months or more.';