CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Richardson, J., Asutosh Mookerjee, J.
Amritalal Hazra & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor. BR Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs @APPELLANT - Respondent
Decided On : 25-02-1915
JUDGMENT
Mookerjee, J. - On the 21st November 1913, during the early hours of the morning, in execution of a warrant issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet, a search was made of a room, rented and occupied by one Sasankasekhar Hazra, alias Amritalal Hazra, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, in the eastern--suburbs of Calcutta. The search warrant authorised the Commisioner of Police to search the premises for explosives, letters, and documents in connection with a bomb outrage committed at Moulvi Bazar on the 27th March 1913. At the search, the Police arrested Sasankasekhar Hazra as also three other persons, Dinesh Chandra Das Gupta, Chandrasekhar De and Sarada Charan Guha, who were found asleep inside the room. The Police found in the room various articles and papers, and amongstotbers, a totacco-tin fitted with three iron discs (two inside and one outside) and four iron clamps, another tin of similar size, four clamps made to fit the second tin, and other discs and clamps, finished and unfinished. According to the prosecution, these articles were made for use as the envelope or shell of a lethal bomb. On the 23rd November, J.N. Ghose, the Police officer to whom the warrant had been endorsed for execution, gave the first information, in which it was alleged that the four persons arrested had committed of ences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On the 26th November, the District Magistrate transferred the case for disposal to Mr Veirh. On the 6th December, one Kalipada Ghose, alias Upen-dralal Rai Chaudhuri, was airestcd in College Street with ten copies of a seditious leaflet called Liberty leaflet, of which two wrere on pink paper and the other eight on white paper. On the 26th January 1914, one Khagendianath Chaudhuri, alios Sures Chandra Chaudhuri, was arrested in a house at Baranagore in the northern suburbs of Calcutta. Meanwhile, search warrants had been executed in various places and information gathered as to the antecedents of the persons in custody. The original proceedings, commenced on the 23rd November, were then withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor u/s 494, Criminal Procedure Code, and the four persons arrested on the 21st November were discharged on the 19th January 1914. At the same time, a fresh complaint was made in which Sasanka, Dines, Sarada, Chandrasekhar Kalipada and Khagen, along with one Hiranmoy Banerji, who had been, in the interval, arrested at Benares, were charged under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act as also u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The consent of the Local Government required by Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was also duly obtained. The Magistrate held that the rase against Hiranmoy Banerji had not been established and discharged him. The other six accused were committed to take their trial in the Court of Session. The first charge against them was to the effect that Sasanka, Dines, Sarada and Chandrasekhar, on or about the 21st November 1913, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, had iif their possession or under their control explosive substances, to wit, Exhibits I, V, VI, VII, and other exhibits, all materials for the creation of bombs, with intent by means thereof to endanger life, and had thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 4 (1892) 2 Q.B. 519 : 61 L.J.M.C. 181 : 5 Rule 10 : 67 L.T. 201 : 41 W.R. 144 : 17 Cox, C.C. 542 : 56 J.P. 712 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The second charge was to the effect that Sasanka, Dines, Sarada, Chandrasekhar, Kalipada, and Khagendra, between March 1911 and 21st November 1913, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, and other places in British India, had conspired, with one another and other persons, to wit, Biroja, Satischandra Chakrabarti, Bhupendranath Sen, Praphulla-ranjan Gupta, Jogeschandra Roy, Nirmal Kanta Roy and other persons, to make and keep explosive substances, with intent by means thereof to endanger, life or enable other persons to endanger life, an offence punishable u
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The judgment establishes the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and emphasizes the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning a person as an additional accused.
The court confirmed convictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing strict standards of evidence and the presumption of guilt regarding drug possession, while minor discrepancies in testimonies were deem....
An advocate in the discharge of his duties to his client must not be hampered by any fear of offending the opposite party or any witness, and in the wake of such a duty it is further pointed out that....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.