JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are from the judgment of a Special Tribunal constituted under Government Order No. 13011-P dated 31st October 1935, which was made under the powers conferred by Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 4, Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925. The tribunal was constituted with the following Commissioners : Mr. H.G.S. Bivar, I.C.S., District and Sessions Judge, Mr. K. C. Das Gupta, I.C.S., District and Sessions Judge, and Rai N.C. Bose, Bahadur, Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Bankura. The tribunal was set up for the trial of 31 persons whose names are set forth in the order itself and who were accused of offences specified in Schedule 1 of the Act we have mentioned. Mr. Bivar was appointed to be the President, of the Commissioners. The trial began on 16th November 1935 on a complaint which. was filed before the tribunal by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rai Saheb Kant Chandra Mookerjea. The complaint was marked as Ex. 1203 in the proceedings. The other necessary legal requisites for the trial of the accused were supplied by : (1) - Government Order authorizing Rai Saheb' Katni Chandra Mookerjee to file a petition; of complaint - Ex. 1204; (2) Government, Order authorizing a trial under the Explosives Act-Ex. 1207; and (3) District Magistrate's order authorizing a trial under the Arms Act - Ex. 1208. Of the 31 accused, named in the Government Order, 30 were produced before the tribunal on the opening, date. Accused 31, Sitanath De, was not present as at that time he was absconding. He was, however, arrested in the District, of Tripura on 3rd May 1935 while the trial was going on and on the basis of Government Order, which is Ex. 1209 of the proceedings, Sitanath was put on his trial. before the tribunal jointly with the other accused persons on 12th May 1936. The fact that Sitanath was not present on 8th May but was subsequently put into the, dock with the rest of the accused persons did not necessitate a de novo trial because Sitanath was given certified copies of the evidence which had already been given and so u/s 7-A, Bengal Criminal Law; Amendment Act, it was not necessary to commence the proceedings over again and. the trial proceeded as if Sitanath had been present from the very beginning. Certain witnesses were, however, recalled and further examined-in-chief and cross-examined.

2. It should be stated that before the commencement of the trial (as the Commissioners state) upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, the Court tendered pardon to two of the accused persons, viz. Santosh Kumar Sen and Bejoy Kristo Pal Chowdhury upon condition of their making a full disclosure of all the facts within; their knowledge. That was done under the. provisions of Section 337, Criminal P.C. And after the Public Prosecutor had made his opening address to the Court, these two persons were put into the witness-box and. they appear on the record as witnesses 1 and 2 called on behalf of the prosecution. After the examination and cross-examination of these two approvers as they had then become, certain other witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and charges were afterwards framed against all the remaining 29 accused persons. These charges were framed on 3rd October 1936. The trial then proceeded and a large number of witnesses were called (502 in fact) and their evidence was finished by 4th December 1936. The next stage was, that on 5th December 1936, on 7th December 1936, 8th December 1936, and 9th December 1936, the statements of the accused were recorded. It is a significant but not an unusual feature in this case that none of the accused attempted to call any evidence on their own behalf. Arguments on behalf of the prosecution began on 9th December 1936 and went on until 3rd February 1937 and two days later, that is on 5th February 137 the arguments for the defence began and they went on for a whole month and finished ultimately on 6th March 1937. The judgment in this case, that is the j