1955 Supreme(Cal) 90

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. DAS GUPTA, GUHA RAY
ANWARALI SARKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Admitted Appeal 250  Of  1953
Decided On : MAY 26, 1955

The provisions of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, were retrospective in operation, and therefore the Special Tribunal had jurisdiction to try offences committed prior to the enactment of the Act.

Headnote:

TRIBUNALS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ACT, 1952 - Retrospective operation - Trial of offences committed prior to the enactment of the Act - Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal - Tendering of pardon by Special Tribunal - Legality - Evidence of pardoned accused - Admissibility - Record of evidence at previous trial - Presumption of correctness - Absence of presumption - Proof of previous statements - Conspiracy to murder European officers of a company and to wrongfully confine other officers - Proof of conspiracy - Liability of conspirators for murder committed in pursuance of conspiracy - Offences under Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act - Whether agreed upon - Evidence - Charges under Sections 302, 201, 342, 302/34, 435 and 427, Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5, Explosive Substances Act - Conviction and sentence - Appeals - Disposal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were tried by a Special Tribunal constituted under the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, for various offences, including conspiracy to murder European officers of a company, murder, wrongful confinement, and offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Special Tribunal had jurisdiction to try offences committed prior to the enactment of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, as the provisions of the Act were retrospective in operation. However, the court held that the Special Tribunal had acted illegally in tendering pardon to one of the accused, and therefore the evidence of that accused could not be considered at the trial. The court also held that the presumption of correctness of the record of evidence at a previous trial did not attach to the record of evidence at a trial held by a Special Court which was not a competent Court, and therefore the correctness of the record had to be proved by other evidence. The court found that there was a conspiracy between several persons to murder European officers of the company and to wrongfully confine other officers during the murderous attack, but that the commission of offences under the Explosive Substances Act or the Arms Act or of mischief was not agreed upon. The court convicted several of the appellants of conspiracy to murder and wrongful confinement, and sentenced them to transportation for life. The court acquitted some of the appellants of the conspiracy charge and the murder charge, and acquitted one appellant of all charges.

Issues: 1. Whether the Special Tribunal had jurisdiction to try offences committed prior to the enactment of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952? 2. Whether the Special Tribunal acted legally in tendering pardon to one of the accused? 3. Whether the presumption of correctness of the record of evidence at a previous trial attached to the record of evidence at a trial held by a Special Court which was not a competent Court? 4. Whether there was a conspiracy between several persons to murder European officers of the company and to wrongfully confine other officers during the murderous attack? 5. Whether the commission of offences under the Explosive Substances Act or the Arms Act or of mischief was agreed upon? 6. Whether the appellants were guilty of conspiracy to murder, murder, wrongful confinement, and offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, were retrospective in operation, and therefore the Special Tribunal had jurisdiction to try offences committed prior to the enactment of the Act. 2. The Special Tribunal acted illegally in tendering pardon to one of the accused, as the Act did not empower Special Tribunals to tender pardon. 3. The presumption of correctness of the record of evidence at a previous trial did not attach to the record of evidence at a trial held by a Special Court which was not a competent Court, and therefore the correctness of the record had to be proved by other evidence. 4. There was a conspiracy between several persons to murder European officers of the company and to wrongfully confine other officers during the murderous attack. 5. The commission of offences under the Explosive Substances Act or the Arms Act or of mischief was not agreed upon. 6. Some of the appellants were guilty of conspiracy to murder and wrongful confinement, while others were not guilty of any of the charges.

Final Decision: The appeals of some of the appellants were allowed, and they were acquitted of the charges against them. The appeals of other appellants were dismissed, and their convictions and sentences were upheld.