( 1 ) THIS Rule raises three important questions of construction regarding Section 207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The most important of them has already been the subject of a decision by a learned Judge of this Court, sitting singly as a trial Judge, but the petitioners contend that the view taken by him is not correct. The questions have arisen in the following way.

( 2 ) ON 23rd of January, 1956, at about 1. 30 and 2 A. M. , there was an incident on board a steel barge, No. 4578a, in the midstream of the river Hooghly. Earlier in the night, the barge had delivered its cargo of salt at Mara Pora Ghat and the unloading having been completed by about 9 P. M. , the members of its crew had gone to sleep after tying it up to a small steamer which was lying in anchor nearby. The crew were five in number, comprising a Manjhi and four Dandis, one of whom has also been called a Bhandari. It is alleged that at about 1-30 or 2 A. M. , they were roused from sleep by loud sounds and on awaking found that the boat was drifting southwards and on it were twenty or twenty-five men, armed with weapons of various kinds. The raiders were recognised to be members of a Boatmen's Association who had declared a strike and had been for some time threatening loyal workers with violence. Several of them got down to the bottom of the boat and began trying to bore holes there with spikes and shovels, while others fell upon the members of the crew. Siddique, the Manjhi, was struck down with a sword-cut on the head and a blow on the right arm with a rod; Islam, the Bhandari, was struck in his abdomen with a sword and pushed into the water; and the three remaining men, Ayub, Rajik and Sukur, who were also assaulted jumped into the river to save their lives. Soon thereafter, a Head Constable of the River Traffic Police, named Ram Prit Chowdhury, who was on patrol duty, came up to the spot in a motor boat on hearing the row and on looking into the barge, found the Manjhi lying bleeding and unconscious. The Head Constable questioned the Manjhi as to what had happened and recovering consciousness for a while, the Manjhi was able to tell him of the attack on the barge. He was then sent to the Koilaghat Police Station. In the meantime, Rajik and Sukur had been able to swim ashore and Ayub had been picked up by a Nepali, named Bahadur. Ayub also was sent to the Koilaghat Police Station where he lodged an information. The dead body of Islam was subsequently recovered from the river and identified by his father and certain other persons. It was in a mutilated condition.

( 3 ) THE Police arrested eight of the Petitioners on 23rd of January and produced them on 24th before the Chief Presidency Magistrate who directed them to be released on bail. On 27th January, the remaining three petitioners surrendered themselves before the Court and on 31st, they were directed to be similarly released. The Police thereafter continued their investigation.

( 4 ) THE petitioners allege that, in all, the Police examined about 40 witnesses, but examination of the material witnesses among them was completed by 29th January, 1956.

( 5 ) SECTION 1 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the Code snail not apply to the Police in the town of Calcutta, but the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to them any of its provisions. Only on 9th February, 1956, did the State Government extend, by a notification published in Calcutta Gazette of that date, Sections 154, 161, 162, 163, 172 and 173 of the Code to the Calcutta Police. Sections 165 and 167 had already been extended previously, but the remaining sections of Chapter XIV remained unextended.

( 6 ) ON 10th April, 1956, the Police submitted their challan against the petitioners, charging them under Sections 149/302/437/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same date, the case was transferred to Mr. S. M. Chatte