JUDGMENT

1. The appellants in these appeals, 29 persons, were tried by a Special Tribunal, constituted by the Government of Bengal under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, on a charge of conspiracy u/s 121-A.I.P. C The charge as drawn up by the learned Commissioners constituting the Tribunal was of the following description: That the accused persons, between 1930 and December 1933, at Munshiganj Road, Watgunge Police Station, and other 70 places, (mentioned in a schedule to the charge), along with Jiten Naha (an approver, examined as a witness for the prosecution) and other persons, five hundred and thirty-seven of whom were named in the schedule to the charge were parties to a criminal conspiracy to wage war against the King or to deprive the King of the Sovereignty of British India, or of some part thereof, or to overawe, by means of criminal force or show of criminal force, the Government of India or the Local Governments.

2. It may be noticed that the mention of so many names in the charge sheet as co-conspirators, was perhaps in consonance with the rule adopted in a case decided by this Court, the propriety of which has not always been recognized: see Amrit Lal Hazra v. Emperor AIR 1916 Cal 188 at pp. 984-986, although the adoption of such a course, the mention of names of persons as co-conspirators indiscriminately gives greater facility in the matter of leading evidence u/s 10, Evidence Act, which would otherwise be inadmissible. It may further be mentioned that the vagueness or indefiniteness attaching to the period of time mentioned in the charge must be taken to be inherent into the nature of the charge itself relating to a conspiracy the origin of which it was impossible to trace with any amount of accuracy, unless it came from the persons charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy, secret in its origin and inception and carried on in secrecy. The petition of complaint filed in the Court of the Commissioners appointed under sub-ss. (1) and (2) of Section 4, Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act mentions the commission of murders, dacoities and collection of arms in Bengal and other places in India and Burma, and ammunition in contravention of the provisions of law, and unlawful and malicious making, possessing, or having in control explosive substances for purposes of destruction of person and property; and evidence, it would appear, was led on the side of the prosecution in support of the ease stated in the petition of complaint. For the purpose of a general idea of the case before the Court, a reference to the facts stated in the petition of complaint is necessary.

3. The criminal conspiracy of the nature mentioned above, was traced in the course of searches in connexion with tracing certain persons who had escaped from prison, detention camps or village domicile or were evading arrest under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act. Jitendra Nath Gupta who had escaped from the Buxa Detention Camp was arrested in Calcutta; this was followed by the arrest of Hem Chandra Bhattacharya who was evading arrest under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, and of Kisori Mohan Das Gupta and Bimal Bhattacharjya; on the person of Jitendra Nath Gupta was found a bunch of keys and other articles; on Kisori Mohan Das Gupta was found a bunch of keys and three letters. After this Surendra Dhar Chaudhury and Jyotish Mazumdar were arrested in a room in which was found a revolver in two parts concealed inside some flour contained in an earthen pot (Handi), 20 cartridges, and several documents and letters including a note on Sanyet Sen; from the pocket of a coat of Surendra Dhar Chaudhury were recovered nine cartridges and a magazine base of a pistol No. 9978. The pistol itself was recovered subsequently from another place. Following upon this, Hrishikesh Das Gupta was arrested, on a statement made by Kisori Mohan Das Gupta, and Kisori's statements led to a search in which books, maps, list of books, letters and iron rods were seized,